Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Preston in the room of Audrey Wise, deceased.
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland in the room of the right hon. Donald Dewar, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of West Bromwich, West in the room of the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, who since her election for the said Borough Constituency has accepted the office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 7 November.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) (BILL) [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Housing Grant (Slough)

Fiona Mactaggart: How much grant towards the cost of house purchase will be available individually for (a) nurses, (b) teachers and (c) police officers in Slough. [133301]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so keen to see the benefits of our new starter home initiative. Over the next three years, we will provide £250 million for this scheme to help key workers on modest incomes to buy their own homes in high-price, high-demand areas, and at the same time to help employers to address their recruitment needs. We are currently working up detailed proposals in the light of responses to the housing Green Paper. Full details of how the initiative will operate, including the groups of key workers who will be eligible and the areas likely to qualify, will be announced later this year.

Fiona Mactaggart: As my hon. Friend will surmise, I put both the list of key workers and my constituency into the question to demonstrate the powerful claim that we have for the funds. In my constituency, there are 50 teaching vacancies not covered by permanent staff, and more than 100 in nursing and midwifery. The situation in policing is slightly confused by the fact that we force police officers in the Thames valley into Slough. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the claims of constituencies such as mine to become sustainable communities and have key public service workers will have a high priority in the details of the scheme?

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was devised precisely to address the kinds of needs that she has identified. As she will be aware, however, the scheme will operate as a challenge fund. We will therefore look at the bids that are submitted in response to the detailed brief to which I have already referred. We will seek to get support for those schemes that give the best value for money and help the largest number of people in need in high-cost areas.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Minister not see how unfair and illogical it is to single out certain categories of key workers and not others—for example, to exclude ancillary workers in the NHS and civilian police employees? Does not he understand that using taxpayers' money in that way will only fuel house-price inflation, and that it is the Government's failure to provide sufficient affordable housing, especially in the south-east, that is putting such pressure on recruitment in key public services? Is not that exacerbated by the Government's barmy plans to build millions of the wrong homes in the wrong places? Is not the home loans policy just another example of government by gimmick?

Mr. Raynsford: That question illustrates the mistake that Opposition Members make when they write their questions in advance. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the precise categories of people who will benefit will depend on the bids. We are not limiting arbitrarily the categories of beneficiaries: we will look at the proposals to judge which would be most effective in meeting real needs, irrespective of the category of public-sector worker or key worker that is involved.
Our scheme is designed to address a real problem that the previous Government did nothing to attack while they were in office. Indeed, they presided over a period of unprecedented house-price inflation, followed by the disastrous slump of the early 1990s that caused record


repossessions and homelessness. We will take no lessons from Conservative Members when it comes to putting forward proper proposals to meet housing needs in this country.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the action that his Department has taken to assist poorer home owners to maintain and improve their homes through grants to local authorities for home improvement agencies. [133302]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government attach great importance to the work of home improvement agencies, the prime purpose of which is to help elderly and disabled people remain independent in their homes. On 24 July, we announced a significant increase in the grants available to local authorities to support agencies, increasing the total available from £6.7 million this year to £8.5 million in each of the next three years. Bids for this money are presently being invited.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the Grasslands, Brooklands and Village neighbourhoods of the Jaywick area of my constituency have serious housing problems. Tendring district council has just completed a neighbourhood assessment study of that area, where other problems include a lack of proper roads and street lighting, and very poor drainage. Will my hon. Friend give very serious consideration to the findings of that study, and to the transport plan submitted by Essex county council? That plan is supported by Tendring district council and would permit further funds to be invested in the roads in that area.

Mr. Mullin: We will certainly give serious consideration to the plans put forward by Tendring district council. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents in Jaywick, where, as he knows, major infrastructure improvements are required. The Government are willing to help, but we need Tendring district council and Essex county council to give a clear lead. There is still some way to go in that regard.
I understand that my hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the councils and the Government office for the east of England on Friday. I hope that he will impress on them the need to come up with a detailed plan for the regeneration of Jaywick, and to give a clear idea of the resources that they are prepared to contribute.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister in the past has paid some attention to affairs in Northern Ireland and will be aware that, some years ago, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive went over to a means-tested system for housing grants. He will also know that, to put it mildly, that has not been an unmitigated success. Will he therefore keep in mind that

any policy that he produces must also take account of the condition of houses, and that the amount of money per applicant should be strictly limited?

Mr. Mullin: I shall certainly keep those points in mind. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that my interest was not in matters Irish, but in the British justice system.

Housing (South-east)

Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent representations he has received from organisations concerning housing in the south-east. [133303]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We received almost 900 representations on draft regional planning guidance for the south-east. We have also received 397 responses to our housing Green Paper from people and organisations based in London and the south-east. Responses to both consultations covered a wide range of housing issues and other matters.

Dr. Lewis: It is hardly surprising that the Government should have received so many representations about their appalling policy of bulldozing and covering in concrete areas of green belt in the south-east to try and make up for the mess that they have made in developing sensible housing strategies for those areas under Labour control. Why does not the Minister simply adopt the commonsense Conservative policy of giving local discretion to local authorities on such matters?

Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the previous Conservative Government approved unprecedented levels of development by private developers on greenfield sites all over the south-east. The legacy of that Government's failed policies have quite rightly generated public concern. That is why this Government have instituted a 60 per cent. target for brownfield development and introduced new planning policy guidance. PPG3 gives clear guidance on how we should aim for development in the cities first, concentrating on urban renaissance rather than on profligate building on greenfield sites, which was the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for high house prices is the lack of suitable, appropriate and affordable housing? Does he agree that it is important to build housing that is close to where people work and not in areas where there is no work?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the importance of the provision of affordable housing for people in need—a point that eludes the attention of the Conservative party—and of ensuring that new housing development is properly related to opportunities for employment, shopping, transport and all the other things that make decent communities. That is why we have introduced our new policies on planning, which are designed to create communities and to encourage urban renaissance. I am impressed by the efforts made by many local authorities, including that of my hon. Friend, to ensure that the opportunities for


sustainable urban development are used, rather than the profligate building on greenfield sites that was the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that the Government's new planning procedures in PPG3 are intended to result in fewer houses being built on greenbelt land, that if those procedures were applied in Hertfordshire it would obviate the need to build 10,000 houses west of Stevenage on greenbelt land, and that senior counsel has advised that the Government's refusal to apply their own procedures in this case is illogical, irrational and contrary to the law?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman, as has so often been the case in previous debates on this subject, is wrong. He will know that there is a distinction between greenbelt and greenfield land, although he clearly fails to note the proper distinction. He will be aware that the principle of sustainability requires an approach that reduces profligate use of greenfield land. That is one of the keystones of PPG3.
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the local planning authority in his county considered these issues in great detail and came to its view—not the Government's view—that it was more sustainable to develop in one location near to transport links and existing employment than to have a huge range of new development spreading throughout the rural areas in his constituency. He may not agree, but that was the decision reached by the local authority in his area, and he is quite wrong to blame the Government for it.

Mr. Chris Pond: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gravesham borough council and North British housing association for the provision of 51 high-quality but affordable rental homes in the centre of Gravesend? Is that not the way to provide much-needed affordable housing in the south-east, without eating into green belt and greenfield sites, as the previous Government obviously did?

Mr. Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend on catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I was able to see this very development with him in Gravesend only last Friday. It is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it—a new development in an urban, town-centre area in the Thames Gateway, which enables us to meet housing needs while at the same time reducing pressure on the countryside. That is exactly the kind of development that is the hallmark of this Government's policies.

Mr. Damian Green: Given what has been happening in the south-east over the past couple of days, the Minister's response is breathtakingly complacent. Will he acknowledge that when, after the floods two weeks ago, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ministers wrote saying that action would be taken, it was reasonable for people in the south-east to think that part of that action would be to cut the number of houses that the Government want to build in the wrong places in the south-east?

Will the Minister give the House an assurance on that? If he cannot do so, will he recognise that among the things washed away will be his reputation for competence?

Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition have once again got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman knows that after the floods that occurred two years ago, we took action—we prepared new guidance on planning in relation to flood plains, which was issued for consultation in the normal way this summer and on which there has been extensive consultation. The hon. Gentleman also knows that those proposals make it clear that we expect developments to avoid flood plains when properties could be at risk. That guidance, which is in the public domain, was issued by this Government. It is time that the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition stopped their silly sloganising on this subject and focused on the real question—how do we meet genuine housing needs in a sustainable manner and protect the countryside? That is what we are trying to do. Everyone knows that the Conservative Government had a disgraceful record—they allowed profligate development all over greenfield sites, including flood plains. I am sorry that he did not apologise for the previous Government's record.

Central Railway

Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will make a statement on the proposed Central Railway project and his Department's policy towards it. [133304]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The amount of freight moved by rail has grown steadily over the period of this Government. Our 10-year plan for transport reinforces our commitment to ensure that that growth continues.
Although we have received copies of Central Railway's consultation documents and seen some of its publicity material, it has not formally submitted details of its proposals. I understand that the company hopes to apply for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Bearing that in mind, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the scheme at this stage.

Mr. Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I appreciate his difficulty in commenting on the merits of the scheme. However, is he aware of the effect of current legislation on my constituents? Although a loss-making company with, effectively, no assets can propose to build a multi-billion pound scheme, there is no requirement to bring that proposal forward for formal consideration within a specified period. In the meantime, my constituents are blighted: they are unable to sell their properties. Does not that offend the Secretary of State's sense of natural justice? If so, what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Prescott: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which I believe he made in an Adjournment debate, and which I read last week. I am happy to concede that most large infrastructure projects are affected, and that the problem is real. He suggested one or two solutions, but they did not fit well with our approach, which we believe can deal with the matter.


However, the difficulty is that we cannot do anything until an application is made and the applicant says what he wants to do.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable support for the scheme in the north-west of England? It would take much freight off the roads and put it on the railways. Even in the north-west, however, there is considerable concern about trying to protect routes for that proposed railway, which could be used for other purposes, well into the future. Will he encourage Central Railway either to get on with the scheme or give it up?

Mr. Prescott: I am, of course, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I have to wait until Central Railway makes its application. The concern about the problem of blight could, I hope, be dealt with by a code of practice, which we have tried to get companies to agree to. However, until Central Railway makes its application—it said that it would produce it several months ago, but still has not done so—I can only suggest that it should bring the scheme before the House. If that were done, there would be a vote. If the House voted to accept the proposal, we would have to deal with the situation, but if it rejected the proposal—it did so on the previous occasion—that would be the end of the matter.

Mr. David Lidington: When the Secretary of State takes account of Central Railway's proposals, will he also please give a fair hearing to the arguments that have been advanced by Chiltern Railways, which said that the scheme is incompatible with the current level of passenger rail service in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies? It also said that the scheme would have the paradoxical effect of driving many rail passengers back into their cars.

Mr. Prescott: Frankly, I have a planning and judicial role and I cannot decide or even comment. When the House debated a different proposition from Central Railway, comments were made. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on his remarks.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem that faces the railway industry is a shortage of track capacity for the future? Would it not be a good idea to keep open all the options for the future, including possibilities such as Central Railway?

Mr. Prescott: I can go a bit further in the sense that the Strategic Rail Authority has an obligation, now that the regulator has reported on the financing of the railways. Basically, he will shortly present a report on the strategic framework, which includes the contribution to be made by freight railway systems and extra capacity. The regulator is considering that matter as well as the financing.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: When the Government consider the proposal, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that environmental considerations will be uppermost in their mind? Does he understand that, in my constituency, the properties of hundreds of people in

the Byfleet and West Byfleet areas on the edge of the motorway are blighted because details of the proposal are included on local searches? Does he realise that it is an important issue, as is noise and the other environmental problems that affect so many individuals all the way along the M25? Their interests are really important, are they not?

Mr. Prescott: I agree and, of course, an environmental assessment will have to be made alongside the other matters to be considered.

Coastal Byelaws

Mrs. Helen Brinton: When he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the review of byelaws for the coast, published in 1998. [133305]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are working towards developing legislative proposals. In the meantime, local authorities can use their existing powers to manage recreational activities on the coast. We have published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. May I draw his attention, however, to recommendation 12, which clearly states the need to consolidate existing coastal byelaws? Furthermore, does he agree that all users of motorised craft, including jet skis, should be required to have third-party insurance and proof of competency, as they are on most inland waterways and, indeed, on all our roads?

Mr. Meacher: We have said that we will consolidate existing coastal byelaws. The proposed legislation, to which I referred, will certainly do so. The review proposes that local authorities should be given the power to require third-party insurance in various circumstances and we shall take that into account as we develop our plans. The review did not recommend proof of competency, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look at that when we develop our legislative proposals.

Rural Transport

Sandra Gidley: What steps he is taking to improve rural transport. [133306]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have made an extra £175 million available to support the transport needs of rural communities. The 10-year plan for transport provides more, so that we can support more scheduled rural bus services, expand the rural bus challenge to support more innovative services and deliver up to 500 new community-based transport schemes in the next three years through the rural transport partnership fund.

Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister agree that it would be exceedingly helpful if he extended the fuel duty rebate to include all forms of community transport, to aid people


in villages who rely on the community bus? Also, should not more money be invested in research on liquid petroleum gas and its availability?

Mr. Meacher: The conclusion that we should draw from the fuel crisis is that we need to reduce our overdependence on oil and to speed the switch-away to alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Lady. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deal with that matter in the pre-Budget report and we shall soon return to the issue in the rural White Paper.

Mr. David Taylor: Is the Minister happy that, in Transport 2010, to which he has just referred, sufficient emphasis is given to the potential for rural rail lines, such as the Ivanhoe line through west Leicestershire, south Derbyshire and east Staffordshire? Does he know that Leicestershire county council feels that present funding regimes are unduly restrictive and that they prevent the recreation of passenger services on this mineral railway, thus contributing to our overall transport objectives?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right; the 10-year transport plan is certainly not confined to roads. We propose expenditure of just less than £60 billion on the rail system in addition; indeed, we should see a considerable increase in ridership and a doubling of the amount of freight carried by rail.
As to the rail line to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that the extra resources that we are making available over the next 10 years will open the possibility of investment in precisely that type of railway.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Chancellor made much of the £15 billion a year rural bus grant. However, will the Minister confirm that that modest amount is dwarfed by the extra costs faced by bus companies, such as the cost of the working time directive and higher fuel prices, and by the fact that shire counties have had their rural transport budgets cut by the Government?

Mr. Meacher: I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that he is entirely wrong to suggest that the considerable expenditure that has gone into rural transport—£175 million—is swamped or dwarfed by what he refers to. VAT and duty on petrol now make up a lower proportion of the total price than in 1997. The UK has the lowest total tax burden in the European Union—far lower than the average. Foreign hauliers and others who operate abroad have to pay road tolls and are subject to higher VAT and corporation tax. When all those relevant factors are taken into account, the picture is very different from that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of my constituents, who recently heard that Stagecoach gave only six weeks' notice of the withdrawal of all their bus services to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth, in order to secure as much money as it could from local authorities through the rural bus initiative? Does he agree that that matter must be

looked at, so that private operators such as Stagecoach, which exercise a monopoly, do not hold local authorities and the public to ransom in that way?

Mr. Meacher: I very much support what my hon. Friend says. Although the 10-year transport plan is about the expenditure of substantial increases of money—42 per cent. in real terms on the previous 10 years—it must also take into account the restrictive practices or monopolisation that can exist and the need to deal with that. We certainly intend to look at the matter.

Mr. Archie Norman: Despite all that the Minister said, will he confirm that rural passenger bus journeys have actually decreased every year under the Labour Government; that the countryside is in crisis; and that the grants for rural bus services are peanuts compared with the amount of extra fuel tax levied on country people by the Government? Will he confirm exactly what he meant during last week's debate on the fuel crisis—that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to attend—when he said that, far from being abolished, the fuel duty escalator may be brought back by the Government and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the future?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has, once again, got virtually all his facts wrong. First, there has not been declining ridership on bus services—he should get his facts right; the £175 million has funded 1,800 new and enhanced services. There has been increased ridership—an extra 16 million passenger journeys.
Secondly, it takes a bit of brass neck for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the countryside is in crisis. In 1997, when his Government completed 18 years in office, only a quarter of parishes had a daily bus service.
Thirdly, I repeat that since 1997 the level of duties has actually declined as a proportion of the total price. The reasons for the increase are the tripling of international crude oil prices and the shortage of petrol on wholesale markets. We intend to deal with that issue, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement.
Let me clarify what the hon. Gentleman wrongly quoted me as saying in the debate last week. I did not say that the fuel duty escalator would be brought back; I specifically denied that. [Interruption.] That is on the transcript, so the hon. Gentleman can read it. I said that the Chancellor had abandoned the fuel duty escalator—which the Tory Administration introduced in 1993, and which is responsible for the largest part of the increase in petrol prices since then—and would now review the situation on a case-by-case and year-by-year basis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an attack, he should get his facts right.

Mr. Norman: Again, the Government appear to be in denial both on the fuel crisis and on the crisis in the countryside. What could be more provocative than Ministers seeking to claim that the Government have not put up fuel duty in the past three years? Nothing could be more provocative for the protesters, and nothing could be more unwise, in advance of the events of next week. What could be more provocative than a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box claiming that the number of bus passenger


journeys in the countryside has increased, when the Government's own figures show that that number may have gone up in London, but has declined in the shire counties in the past three years? If the Minister disagrees with me, why does he not quote the figures in his response?
Has the Minister disowned the comments in his 1996 document "Consensus for Change", which said:
it is essential that taxation does not result in further isolation of those in rural areas…?
Who does he think has been disadvantaged most by the Government's increase in the fuel duty, other than those who are most vulnerable—farmers and those who live in the countryside in relative poverty?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, may I point out that I want brief questions from those on the Opposition Front Bench, and brief answers from Ministers.

Mr. Meacher: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because it is easy to be so. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a very long, dreary and ineffective speech last week, and he appears to have the same habit when he asks questions. May I respond to the one point that he made? I did not say that there had been no increase in duty; I said that VAT and duty as a proportion of the total petrol price were now lower than in 1997. To blame the Government is completely wrong. The cause is the tripling of oil prices.

Magna Project (South Yorkshire)

Mr. Denis MacShane: What proposals he has to improve road access to the Magna project in south Yorkshire. [133307]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The planning permission for Magna granted by Rotherham metropolitan borough council requires access to the visitor attraction from the south to be via junction 33 of the M1. Some £500,000 of the resources available to Magna have been set aside for additional road works, signage and traffic-calming measures at that junction and on the road layout to the Magna project.

Mr. MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. She will be aware that Magna is a millennium project that, sensibly, is opening next year—the first year of the millennium—so as to avoid the curse of everything that opened in 2000. The access road to the project from the Meadowhall shopping centre is important, and Rotherham and Sheffield councils are working together. The project is essential for economic regeneration, so will my hon. Friend ask her officials to consider giving priority for the new access road in the first five years of the 10-year development plan for south Yorkshire? If she cannot answer that technical point from the Dispatch Box today, will she receive a delegation to explore the problem further?

Ms Hughes: As I said, the success of Magna is not dependent on roadworks at junction 34, but my hon.

Friend strongly makes the case for improved links between Meadowhall and Magna. However, it is for the south Yorkshire local authorities, in the local transport plan, to set their priorities for the first five years and then for the second five years. They have indicated that there is a possibility for 2006 and beyond, but that is not in the first five years of the plan. They are considering priorities in relation to the objective 1 programme. I should certainly be happy to talk further to my hon. Friend, but the priorities for such schemes need to be set locally.

Ring Roads

Sir Teddy Taylor: When he plans to make a decision on the location of new ring roads; and how many of those have been determined so far. [133308]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We have not determined the location of the up to 100 bypass schemes for which funding is provided in our 10-year transport plan. That will depend on priorities identified in developing regional transport strategies and local transport plans.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In setting that programme, will the Minister accept that the south-east of England, and South-end in particular, has become about the most over-congested area of the nation, and the most neglected for road programmes? Bearing in mind the impact that that has on employment, is he willing to receive an all-party deputation from Southend to discuss possible solutions, including a ring road, which is urgently needed?

Mr. Hill: It is up to Southend borough council to determine its transport priorities in seeking Government funding through its local transport plan. We have heard the judgment of Southend borough council, and the council's full local transport plan, which was submitted this July, includes proposals for public transport improvements in the A13 corridor and road improvements in the A127 corridor to assist freight movements, but no proposal for a northern A127 bypass of the town. The hon. Gentleman should address his concerns to the local authority. The Government's position is that it is for local people to find local solutions to local transport problems, and we shall do our best to support them.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend think that, in designing new ring roads, it is essential to agree that they should indeed be ring roads, so that they do not immediately become clogged with parked traffic and so on, which defeats the purpose of building such roads?

Mr. Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of matter that we consider in our very careful appraisal of all proposals for ring roads—or, to use the more modern terminology, bypass proposals.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the appalling state of the nation's roads following the dreadful cuts in the roads programme inflicted by the Labour party, would not the Minister be well advised to give his attention to those road problems? When the nation's


railways are in crisis, and many of the nation's roads are flooded and covered by fallen trees, is it not extraordinary that he makes the announcement:
My Department is proposing to make bells on bicycles compulsory…?
At a time of transport crisis, has he not shown that the Government are losing their touch?

Mr. Hill: A good try by the hon. Gentleman—but I should have thought that as an avid cyclist, he would have welcomed that announcement. Indeed, I have led him on my own bike through the roads of London. We are in a difficult position, we are taking it very seriously and we are addressing our immediate attention to the transport difficulties that we are now experiencing—but do not knock the cyclists.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Would not the best possible thing that the Government could do for the city of Lancaster be to reverse the many years of Tory neglect, to aid the environment, to underpin a sustainable public transport system and vastly to increase the prospects of economic regeneration, by announcing the funding for Lancaster's western bypass in December, so that it can be built?

Mr. Hill: Another day, another demand. That is the second time that I have heard that demand from my hon. Friend, who participated in an Adjournment debate on precisely the same subject in Westminster Hall this morning. I commend him on his assiduous representation of his constituents' interests. I must say now what I said to him earlier: the bypass is a proposal in the local transport plans, on which we will make our announcements before Christmas.

Bypasses

Mr. Peter Viggers: What plans for bypasses have been (a) cancelled and (b) proposed by the present Government. [133309]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Twenty of the 40 schemes in our targeted programme of trunk road improvements are bypasses. We cancelled the Salisbury and Hereford bypasses because of their impact on environmentally sensitive sites.

Mr. Viggers: According to the Government's own figures, they receive £36.5 billion in taxation from motorists and spend £4.9 million a year on road building. Is that fair?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that this Government are committed to a sensible and achievable programme of bypasses and trunk road improvements. Twenty of the 40 schemes in our £1.5 billion targeted programme of trunk road improvements will provide bypasses for local communities, creating safer and healthier environments for those suffering from the effects of heavy volumes of traffic.
We are responding to local demands, and we have an achievable and realistic programme. We are not in the business of subscribing to fantasy lists of road schemes,

such as those in which the preceding Administration engaged. Indeed, nearly half of the schemes included in the 1990 "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper had bitten the dust six years later. This Government are about serious improvements in our trunk road system, and we are delivering them.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important reasons for bypasses is to relieve the narrow and ancient streets of small market towns and villages from the ever larger heavy lorries that must rumble through them? Will he confirm that the Government support such bypasses in the 10-year plan, and are prepared to fund them? Now that Suffolk county council has finally recognised the need for the Bungay bypass in its structural plan, I hope that some money will be found within a reasonable time scale to enable that project to become reality.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a fair point on behalf of his constituents. We agree in principle; we shall be examining the detailed proposal in due course and making an announcement.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned the cancellation of the Hereford bypass—a scheme that the previous Government downgraded. Given that there is much concern in the city of Hereford about the road traffic problem, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of Herefordshire council, of the local chamber of commerce and of business and environmental groups, to see which schemes, short of a full bypass, could be taken forward to help relieve that problem?

Mr. Hill: I am, of course, open to any reasonable request for a delegation, and we are obviously perfectly happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman and the local authority. After all, our recently announced 10-year transport plan will ensure the funding of up to 100 bypasses on national and local roads and 130 other major local road improvements, and will deliver up to 80 major national trunk-road schemes to improve safety and traffic flow at junctions. Against that backdrop, we are of course a listening Government, and will certainly listen to his concerns.

Local Authority Housing

Dr. Brian Iddon: What role tenants will play in deciding the future of local authority housing. [133310]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Tenants should be fully involved in making decisions on the future of their homes. The introduction of best value and tenant participation compacts will ensure that they are fully involved in reviewing and developing options for future investment in housing.

Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. On this issue, there is obviously clear blue water between the Government's policies and those of the Conservatives, who would flog off all local authority stock with little


consultation with tenants. When my hon. Friend consults local authority tenants on the options in the recent housing Green Paper, will there be a level playing field?

Mr. Raynsford: The answer is yes. We have made it clear that local authorities and local authority tenants have a range of options to consider, including the new proposal for arm's-length companies and the possibility of investment through the private finance initiative, as well as the possibility of stock transfer. I know that my hon. Friend and his local authority have been exploring variations on those models with a community regeneration company in Bolton. I congratulate him and his authority on those discussions, and particularly on the fact that the Bolton Association of Tenants and Residents Associations—BATRA—has been fully involved. That, by contrast with the policies pursued by the Conservative party, is a model of the way in which the Labour party believes tenants should be involved.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that "in the wake" of a Labour Government—I am sure that that phrase is appropriate—he wanted to see the return of council house building, and promised 100,000 council houses every year? Will he now admit that the Government have done a U-turn and adopted the Conservative policy of taking council housing stock out of local authority control?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not. The Government have set a highly ambitious programme to deal with the entire backlog of substandard council housing within 10 years, which gives everyone living in council housing the prospect of having a decent home within that time. That is a major change from the previous position. We have said that it is up to tenants and local authorities to explore a range of options for the future of the housing stock. Some will pursue the option of stock transfer, and some will want to keep the property in council ownership and improve it, using the new arrangements that the Government have put in place. That is entirely in line with the principles of the housing Green Paper, which was entitled "Quality and choice: A decent home for all". It is precisely quality and choice that we are pursuing for public sector housing.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that council house tenants will have a role in determining their destiny. Will he also take into consideration the fact that resources are needed to replace metal frame windows and improve bathrooms and kitchens? He noted the point that was made earlier, but will he give further consideration to providing resources to make sure that we can improve our council houses and bring them up to 21st-century standards?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I can assure him that through the spending review, we have secured continued substantial increases in resources to enable local authorities to improve their housing stock, and to allow an increased supply of new, affordable housing to be built. I can also tell my hon. Friend that from next April we are introducing the major repairs allowance, which will for the first time give local authorities a proper basis for the maintenance of their

housing stock, to stop the deterioration that was such a lamentable characteristic of council housing under the previous Government.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Minister knows that many tenants have already voted to transfer to housing associations, such as Banbury Homes in my constituency. Those housing associations have agreed and settled business plans with the Housing Corporation. Will the Minister give an undertaking that those business plans will be honoured?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is referring, I think, to the proposals for rent restructuring in the Green Paper. They are designed to ensure a more coherent framework in future for the rents that apply both to registered social landlords and to local authorities. We have had productive and detailed discussions with registered social landlords and other interested parties about the impact of the rent restructuring proposals, and I am pleased to say that they have been carried forward in a constructive spirit of seeking to achieve the Government's objective, to which everyone subscribes, and at the same time safeguarding the viability of RSLs.
I have several times given assurances that it is not our intention to threaten the viability of organisations that have entered into plans for the future based on long-term financial arrangements. It is certainly our intention to see that their future is secured.

Traffic Congestion (South-East London)

Mr. Clive Efford: What steps he is taking to improve public transport and relieve traffic congestion in south-east London. [133311]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Our 10-year plan for transport provides substantial resources for transport improvement in London. The Mayor of London has a crucial role to play in deciding priorities for south-east London.

Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. If we are to address some of the problems experienced by my constituents—notably the increasing traffic on the roads from Kent and East Sussex that come through my constituency—planning and powers beyond London and beyond the Mayor's sphere of operation will be required. It is for the Department to deal with that. Furthermore, in my hon. Friend's future discussions with London Transport, which he will continue to have in spite of the introduction of the Mayor, will he impress upon London Transport the need to improve links with the new North Greenwich underground station, so that people can access it for their travel to work?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right to say that transport issues in south-east London must be considered in a wider context. Indeed, they are being considered in the context of the Thames gateway strategy. Links to North Greenwich station have proved an enormous success in this millennium year, and we are looking carefully at ways


in which they can be sustained. I am confident that effective transport links to that station will remain after this year has ended.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that notwithstanding the recent problems caused by severe weather, public transport in south-east London was already in complete chaos as a result of recent work by Railtrack? Does he agree that if that work was necessary, it was incumbent on Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide the travelling public with reliable information? Was not the lack of information a disgrace? Does the Minister agree with my constituent, Mr. Steve Wharton, who suggested in The Guardian today that we now have a "notional" rail inquiries service?

Mr. Hill: Those were exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that the travelling public—or the would-be travelling public—deserve a better information service. That service did not work during yesterday's difficulties, and it ought to have done. Frankly, many aspects of the system ought to have been able to withstand yesterday's circumstances, and the Government are paying urgent attention to that matter.

Joan Ruddock: May I tell my hon. Friend of the great relief in my constituency and throughout south-east London when Connex South Central lost its franchise? However, there was then some dismay because GoVia, the company that is to receive that franchise, has, in its operation of Thameslink in my constituency, a record of punctuality even worse than that of Connex South Central. Will the Minister give my constituents guarantees that rail services in south-east London will be improved?

Mr. Hill: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and very much appreciate the way in which she has put them. Decisions on refranchising are for the franchising director, but I am sure that he took into account the totality of GoVia's offer, which includes an £800 million investment in new rolling stock, an undertaking to fit all trains with the train protection warning system, more than 100 extra drivers, station refurbishments, more other staff and more car parking.

Housing Policy (Newcastle)

Mr. Jim Cousins: What assessment he has made of the extent to which the clearance and new house-building policies of Newcastle city council are consistent with regional planning guidance. [133312]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The panel report of the public examination of regional planning guidance for the north-east was published in October. I am currently considering what changes are necessary, and will consult on that in due course. Once the regional planning guidance is finalised, local authorities should ensure that their plans and policies accord with it.

Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like me, he will understand that there are great possibilities for regeneration in Newcastle. However, mass demolition of neighbourhoods against the wishes of the people who live there should never be part of our policies. The wishes of the people of the inner city, their hopes for the future and their aspirations for themselves and their children are the essential building blocks for reviving neighbourhoods—not property deals.

Mr. Prescott: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about inner cities—a point that he has made strongly to the House before. However, he will accept that, where there are an awful lot of empty properties that cost local authorities considerable resources, that provides us with an opportunity to have less density in city areas and provide more open spaces, as identified in Lord Rogers' plan. Inevitably, and rightly, that should not be done without the widest consultation and support of people affected by the plans.

Road Building

Mr. Tim Collins: When he last met the Royal Automobile Club to discuss road building. [133313]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Ministers regularly meet the RAC foundation both bilaterally and in the context of the motorists forum. At those meetings various issues are discussed, including road building.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the number one priority for RAC members and others in my constituency is the construction of the much needed A590 bypass at High and Low Newton? The Minister knows that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and I have made many representations to her on the matter. The bypass is supported by every tier of local government in the area. Will the Government give the area good news soon?

Ms Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because the road provides a good case study for contrasting the action—or non-action—of the previous Government with the action of the current Administration. He knows that a public inquiry approved the building of the road, and that it was included in the previous Government's wish list of 500 schemes in 1993. However, there were two priorities on that list—priority one was maybe; priority two was never. The road received priority two status.
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Government included the scheme in the programme that was initiated after the roads review. It was remitted to the regional planning conference for consideration of the environmental issues, which the hon. Gentleman will know about. The conference identified the scheme as of regional strategic significance and said that it should be implemented by 2010. Provided that that priority remains, the resources in the transport plan mean that it should be delivered.

Severe Weather Disruption

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the violent storms that hit much of England and Wales late Sunday night and early yesterday morning.
We offer deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who tragically lost their lives. There has been tremendous inconvenience and disruption, but our thoughts are especially with those whose homes have been flooded or damaged.
According to the Meteorological Office, the storm that we experienced was the most severe since 1987. There was widespread flooding, very high rainfall and high winds. There were blizzards in the north-west and tornadoes on the south coast. Electricity and gas supplies were disrupted, road and rail links were blocked, airports and sea ports were closed. There was considerable damage to property, especially in coastal areas.
From Sunday evening, emergency teams have been working constantly. There were teams from local authorities, the Environment Agency, Railtrack and the electricity and gas supply industry. The police, fire and ambulance services, and coastguard and lifeboat crews have, with their usual professionalism, provided valuable help and assistance. All have done a magnificent job. I am sure that the House will join me in recording not only our admiration but our heartfelt thanks for a job well done in difficult circumstances.
Normal services are now being restored. The Environment Agency reported that, overall, there has been a general improvement in the flood situation overnight. However, 33 severe flood warnings remain in place, and still more properties are under threat from flooding.
Early indications suggest that the new flood warning systems now used by the Environment Agency have been effective and that lessons have been learned from the past. The Environment Agency will draw up a report on the lessons to be learned from the floods two weeks ago in East Sussex and from the current floods. The report will be circulated to all hon. Members. I believe that an Adjournment debate on such matters took place last week.
The Bellwin scheme, which the previous Government introduced, is in place to provide financial help to local authorities in England in emergencies such as this storm. The arrangements also apply to police and fire authorities, and the National Assembly for Wales operates similar arrangements.
Money is available to help with uninsurable clear-up costs following a serious disaster or emergency. In March this year, my Department wrote to all local authorities to tell them about the scheme and how to use it. Under the scheme, each authority is responsible for expenditure on emergency work up to a threshold of just 0.2 per cent. of its annual budget. Expenditure above the threshold is eligible for 85 per cent. assistance from central Government. Several authorities are already in contact with my Department and we will ensure that their requests for help are dealt with as quickly as possible.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House last Wednesday, we are increasing funding for

flood and coastal defence. The Environment Agency's total flood defence expenditure was £261.8 million in 1998–99. In 1999–2000, that increased to £276.1 million. The budget for 2000–01 is £283.1 million, and planned expenditure for 2001–02 is £290.1 million.
There has been considerable discussion of the important planning issues that often arise in connection with these matters. We consulted earlier this year on draft new planning guidance, which will deal with the issue of development in flood risk areas. That considerably improves on the 1992 circular.
Our policy is clear: it is to discourage inappropriate development in flood risk areas. We intend to issue the final version of the new guidance in December. We are therefore—together with the Environment Agency—improving flood warnings; encouraging, and providing more funding for, flood and coastal defence; and encouraging development away from flood risk areas.
The storm that we experienced was certainly extreme. There is much discussion about the influence of global warning on our weather—[interruption] I mean, global warming. It is still very much a global warning—perhaps that is the word that I should have used. We cannot say that any one storm is due to global warming, but there is growing evidence that the pattern of weather around the world is increasingly stormy and extreme.
The UK is taking a leading role in securing the Kyoto global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases to limit climate change in future. However, we must take practical action now so that we are prepared for a future where extreme weather events are more frequent. That is why we have produced the climate change impacts study for the UK, and why we are producing a series of regional climate change impact studies on how different parts of the United Kingdom will be affected. We can now accurately predict and forecast extreme weather events.
We have to ask ourselves if we are doing enough to cope with the new situation. Should our power lines for trains and homes come down every time we have such storms? Should 1,000 trees fall across our railway lines in the south-east? Should we do more to prevent flooding? Are the drainage systems on our roads really adequate? The storm should be a wake-up call for everyone. Our infrastructure should be robust enough and our preparations rigorous enough to withstand the sort of weather that we have just experienced.
Tomorrow, I will be attending a meeting of the central local partnership with the leaders of central and local government, who have to deal with a great deal of this emergency planning and action. We will want to discuss how to undertake a more in-depth analysis of what is needed to be done. Together with my ministerial colleagues, the emergency services, the Environment Agency and others, we will want to look at how to review our systems for dealing with such emergencies. I have spoken with Sir John Harman, the chairman of the Environment Agency. He intends to play a leading role in this work.
We have measures in place to deal with the immediate effects of this storm. We need to take a longer term look at how we can as a country be better placed to deal with the extreme weather events which we expect to be more frequent in future.
The House will wish to join me in thanking local authorities, the emergency services and many others involved for their unstinting efforts, and in offering sympathy on the loss and suffering experienced by people in the areas affected.

Mr. Archie Norman: First, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. We are grateful for his unprompted and timely response. I join him in expressing sympathy for those who are bereaved or injured, and for the many thousands of people throughout the country who are suffering the misery of seeing their homes ruined by the flooding. In many instances, this is the second or third time in recent months that they have been flooded. I take this opportunity to join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the emergency services for their magnificent response to the crisis.
The floods now form a pattern that perhaps first became evident in Easter 1998, with the extensive flooding in middle England. The writing has been on the wall for a little while, and we must recognise that this is a serious problem and will remain so for years to come. Today's response is very welcome, but I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address a number of issues arising from what is now a very worrying trend.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister feel that there are any lessons to be learned now—I appreciate that these are early days—about the handling of the crisis? For example, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned power lines, and there are widespread reports from Kent today that the switchboard of the local utility company has been jammed solid for the past two days. People who are dangerously affected by power lines are unable to get through to the company to seek advice. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a case, perhaps, for looking into the co-ordination and integration of the crisis response, and providing a single information line to which the public can turn?
Secondly, although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that compensation for local authorities will be forthcoming, will he comment on the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who mentioned in the House last week that the process of compensation had been slow? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would respond swiftly, but can he reassure local authorities on what specific action will be taken to ensure that the response is swift and compensation is received?
In the light of the recurring instances of flooding, does the right hon. Gentleman think with hindsight—obviously, he has the benefit of hindsight—that the response of the Environment Agency is a cause for concern? Does he recall that, after the deaths and distress caused by the 1998 floods, the independent review team commented that some of the problem
can be attributed to weaknesses in the planning and delivery of flood and defence warning policies, and even taking into account all the mitigating circumstances described in this Report, the Environment Agency did not achieve its own performance standards.
Can he reassure the House that, in addition to the inquiry conducted by the Environment Agency, there will be an investigation into its performance, powers and effectiveness in dealing with future flood crises?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the funding for flood defences are adequate? He mentioned that funds are increasing, which is true, but the figures suggest that

flood defence expenditure will rise by only about 7 to 8 per cent. over the next two years—I think I am right in that—which is scarcely enough to meet inflation in construction costs alone. The Environment Agency today reports that it has a substantial backlog of expenditure to be met. Does he think that current expenditure plans are adequate?
Finally, on the longer term issues, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the commitment to accelerate housebuilding on greenfield land in the south-east and south-west—against the wishes of local people and local councils—may exacerbate the risk of flooding? The Environment Agency warned in 1998 that the Government's estimates for new housebuilding were adding to the pressure and that an area of flood plain the size of Bristol—I appreciate that the guidelines have changed since then—could be built on over the next 20 years. Does he accept that decisions to build in river valley areas that may or may not be designated flood plains but which play an important role in absorbing rainfall—such as Lewes, Hertfordshire north of Stevenage, and the flood plains of Ashford and the Nene valley in Northamptonshire—are exactly what the Environment Agency warned against?
Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate and set out in full the relationship between housebuilding and the development of flood risk and, indeed, the effect of other development in the countryside on flood risk? In the meantime, will he suspend his plans to override the south-east regional planning committee and the wishes of councils in the south-east and south-west? Does he recognise that that is another reason why the Government should reconsider their plans to concrete over the countryside by building the wrong houses in the wrong places, and that doing so risks contributing to future misery caused by the loss of greenfield land and, more important, flooding in our towns and villages?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy and support for the emergency services. All hon. Members would give their full support to those remarks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Easter flooding in 1998. I visited Stratford at the time and saw for myself how bad the flood was. A main complaint when I was there was that no prior warnings were received. In light of last week's Adjournment debate on the earlier floods, it is clear that, on the whole, warnings have improved considerably. Sir John Harman has given me one or two examples of failure to give sufficient warning, but in the main there has been a considerable improvement.
The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was acted on by the Government to ensure that more resources were provided and more warnings were given. It is clear that we have learned some lessons, but there are an awful lot more to learn. That is why I want to bring the parties together, which is important in the handling of a crisis. The Environment Agency now has a responsibility to produce a report at the end of the event to show how it dealt with the crisis. Hon. Members whose constituents were affected can read the report and conclude whether the Environment Agency gave sufficient warnings and acted effectively in the emergency. That demonstrates transparency and accountability. We will wait to see what the report says. I shall certainly be very interested to see it.
As every Member with a constituent who has experienced these problems knows, compensation always takes a long time—even for those who succeed in obtaining Bellwin funding—and there are constant complaints about that. Assessing all the damage obviously takes time, but I think that the complaint is legitimate. Ministers hide behind the Bellwin fund, saying, "Don't worry, there is a fund to help", but they know that it can be difficult to gain access to the money. I shall review the rules that apply in such circumstances in the forum that I mentioned.
We—my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have increased funding from our own resources considerably, but what worries me is that we tend to plan for circumstances that are far less serious than we should reasonably expect. I do not think that what we assume to be extreme circumstances are being catered for by the present arrangements. For instance, are the pumps on the roads strong enough to disperse the floods that we are currently experiencing? Structures on the east coast railway lines are regularly pulled down because they were built on the cheap, and there was no proper investment. I am not making a political point—it happened under both parties—but the fact remains that we are not devoting the necessary resources to conditions that we may describe as extreme, but must now accept as normal.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman was making a political point at the end of his question, when he spoke of the housing requirements of the south-east. The Conservatives are getting very excited about them, but they are being discussed by local authorities and in the House, and we must make judgments about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Serplan requirement was for 33,000 homes a year. Professor Crow suggested 55,000; we anticipated 43,000, and the current figure is about 39,000.
If the Opposition argue that local authorities should not be forced to accept a higher figure, why did Kent county council, in the last year of Tory government, increase the number of dwellings by 3,000 over and above the local authority requirement? I do not know whether they were built on the flood plains to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but who decided that houses should be built on flood plains? The answer is local authorities. That, I believe, is the Opposition's approach. They say, "Do not let central Government have a role; leave it to local authorities." Local authorities, not central Government, were responsible for building on the flood plains.
I could make my political points, but I do not think that that would help. Let us get on seriously with doing the job. The Opposition should look to their past as well as to the future, and show a little more humility.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as we speak, the River Aire in the Bradford district in the north of England is at a 50-year high, flooding many homes and cutting off bridges and towns including Bingley, Shipley, Baildon and Burley-in-Wharfedale? There are no rail services and few road services. There have been several evacuations, in which hundreds have been evacuated. Obviously, many local

people are very concerned. Will my right hon. Friend monitor the developments closely and liaise with the local authority about the financial implications?

Mr. Prescott: I shall certainly do those things. Monitoring is very important. As I said in my statement, I consider this to be a wake-up call. I think that all of us—the Government, local authorities and public and private operators—should ask ourselves whether we could do more to prevent the misery which many of our citizens suffer on such occasions.

Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, especially given that only yesterday the Prime Minister's official spokesman told journalists that there were no plans for such a statement to be made. Interestingly, Mr. Alastair Campbell used a rather cryptic expression, saying, "The weather has been devolved." I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman understands what that means.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in offering sympathy to the bereaved families, and to those who have been injured. I also join him in congratulating both the emergency services and local authorities. Does he agree, however, that we should thank the many private individuals who have voluntarily given a great deal of support to those in greater need? In particular, will he congratulate Lewes council, which has had to deal with the problems of floods for more than two weeks?
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly addressed, perhaps for the first time, genuine concern about the impact of global warming, leading to these particular problems, who does he think the Minister for the Environment had in mind when he said in The Guardian today:
It is…remarkable that, during the recent fuel crisis hardly anyone mentioned the environment…?
I wonder to whom the Minister for the Environment was referring.
Why did the Deputy Prime Minister say in his statement that the Government are offering more money for flood defences, when the figures, which he even read out, demonstrate that there is no increase whatever over and above inflation? Does he accept that, given that he has admitted that there is more likelihood of severe weather, there should be an increase in funding?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Deputy Prime Minister, may I say that every hon. Member has a constituency interest in the matter. I want to call everyone. I can do so with the co-operation of the House, if hon. Members' questions are brief.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his support for the emergency services. I—no one else—make statements to the House. I am responsible to the House—no parliamentary or news spokesman is. If I decide that it is right to make a statement to the House, that is what I do. That is what I have done. I did not consult anyone else. [Interruption.] Sorry, Alastair.
Like the hon. Member for Bath, I give my support to the voluntary organisations. They are always there. Individuals helped, too—I should have mentioned them


in my statement, as I did in the previous statement on rail. They play an impressive role in such circumstances. They are at home doing nothing and then, all of a sudden, they become heroes. I am sure that the House wishes them well and thanks them for all that they do.
I congratulate the local authority in Lewes. In the past couple of weeks, it has had difficulties; those difficulties did not start just at the weekend. I read about the events to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
With regard to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was referring to in The Guardian, I am always a bit sceptical about what we can believe in any paper, including The Guardian, but I asked him whether he meant the Liberal party. He said he did not; he meant non-governmental organisations. I might add that it was the Minister for the Environment and I who convened an environmental conference in London during the dispute, so we were constantly making our points. I am not sure that the green groups were, but I shall leave that aside; I have made my point about that before.
As for the giving of more resources, if we put all the groups together, the total amount of money that I should have reported to the House is about £400 million—considerably more than just taking inflation into account.

Mr. Eric Martlew: We all know that a massive amount of work was done on the railways this weekend, and then we had the crisis because of the weather. May we thank the workers who have been on the railways, out in all weathers?
We still have chaos on the rail railways. Is that because we do not have the number of workers with the skills required? If we are going to maintain a railway—it is crucial that we get lines back working as quickly as possible—we need more skills. Will my right hon. Friend look at the situation, do a skills audit to find out how many more railway men we need to maintain a modern railway, get the industry together and ensure that we get those workers.

Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the House will want to agree with my hon. Friend's comments with regard to the many thousands of workers at the weekend—20,000—who got on with attempting to deal with all the problems with the track. Indeed, on Monday, 10,000 of them were transferred to deal with problems that arose from the weather. There have been difficult circumstances, but I think that we would want to congratulate all those people on their efforts. Ultimately, it will be for the inquiries to determine what factors contributed to the accident.
Nevertheless, contracts and the availability of skilled workers, particularly engineers, are matters of grave concern. I have asked the industry—including the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, railway companies and the health and safety authorities—to report back to me, on Thursday, with a Railtrack recovery programme. When we have that programme clear in our minds, we will be able to develop an emergency programme dealing with train arrivals. I think that that is what people want, and that is what I hope to be able to give them very shortly.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. It will be some consolation to those who have been flooded, or who are

about to be flooded, that the alarms work better than they used to. However, could we look more thoroughly into the causes of flooding? Specifically, has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions been able to assess the contribution made by overhead power lines to global warming?

Mr. Prescott: On the effectiveness of alarms, I quite agree that it is far better to prevent damage. However, there has been very considerable rainfall in the past couple of days, and, as the hon. Lady will know, the run-off of that rain has considerably increased water levels in rivers, such as the one at York. Such conditions are very difficult to deal with, but we should look into whether there is more that we can do, and I shall do that.
I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Lady's point on power lines.

Miss McIntosh: What is their effect on global warming?

Mr. Prescott: I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the misery of the past few days is a clear indication that he got it spot on at Kyoto? Can he tell us what he intends to do, at the follow-up next month, to persuade all the other countries to co-operate to lower CO2 emissions? What is the United Kingdom going to do to give a lead in the matter?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and for his congratulations on the efforts that we have made on the Kyoto protocol. The process now moves to The Hague, where we will have to get an agreement. Although that agreement will be between the developed countries and the developing countries, it will be up to the developed countries to lead the way. I hope that the complications presented by some developed countries do not lead to suggestions that the developing countries will have to sign up to the agreement, as that will make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement. An awful lot of work is being done, however, and the prospect of agreement looks promising—although one can never tell until one gets into the negotiations.
I think that every incident demonstrating climate change reminds everyone, whether he or she lives in a developing or a developed country, that we are all affected by climate change. Climate issues have no national boundaries and affect people everywhere, whether they live in China, Nigeria or America. All those countries will have to reach an agreement on climate change issues.
Lately, I have done quite a bit of travelling—for which I have been criticised—to try to achieve agreement on some of those issues. If a lot of the work is not done before such conferences, they can break down. We were successful at Kyoto because of that type of work. I think that everyone realises that success at The Hague requires a lot of hard work and commitment, and that, if we are not successful there, an awful lot of children in the future will not forgive us.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very special consideration to people who have properties that have been damaged or who have suffered uninsurable losses? Will he also bear in mind that


many farmers' crops have been totally destroyed and that those crops were not insured? Additionally, people whose houses may or may not have been on a flood plain have suffered losses that they never expected, because they never expected such a freakish storm.

Mr. Prescott: Of course, the Bellwin fund is about covering local authorities and uninsurable losses; ultimately, however, to be honest, it does not cover farmers. I think that MAFF and other bodies offer other forms of compensation, which should be taken into account.

Mr. Peter Snape: What comfort can the Deputy Prime Minister offer us in relation to the railway's problems in dealing with inclement weather? Earlier, he referred to things being done on the cheap in this country. Does he agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as we had anything greater than a summer breeze, the overhead railway lines—not the lines causing global warming, but the ones propelling trains—were the first to collapse? Will he suggest to Railtrack management that they go to Switzerland, where the Swiss have been stringing wires up the sides of mountains for many years, and where the wind has been known to blow without causing undue damage? What can we do to get a decent railway?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In opposition, we both made it clear when we felt that cheap options had been taken to the detriment of the long term. A good example is the electrification of the east coast line. Frankly, that was the second cheaper option that was taken. Those of us who use that line regularly have to face the fact that it keeps coming down. It does not seem to take a very strong wind, certainly not gale force. I think that the wrong option was taken and that we should learn from past mistakes. In my statement I suggested that we should invest in building more security and safety into the infrastructure.

Mr. Norman Baker: May I add my gratitude and admiration for the emergency services and Lewes district council for their work during the terrible tragedy that hit my constituency, where 400 houses were evacuated and the entire retail and business area of the town remains shut to this day? May I gently suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that I am pleased that it served as a wake-up call?
In two Adjournment debates last year, I warned the House that the river defences in Lewes were inadequate, but nothing was done. I hope that will now be corrected. I have just come from a meeting with business leaders in the town who tell me that they are losing £3 million a day. They and the residents of Lewes want a pledge from the Government that there will be a strategic overview of the river Ouse and Uck system and that when recommendations are made for improvements—quickly, I hope—the Government will find the money to introduce those improvements so that there is no repetition of the floods that hit my constituency.

Mr. Prescott: I am advised that the Government are looking at proposals, but I shall write to the hon.

Gentleman, as he raises a point that I am not too conversant with in detail, except that I am aware of the problems in respect of private property ownership in the area.

Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his continuing work to deal with this catastrophe. We now have a new concept for emergency planning. Will he look closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency at the criteria used to justify expenditure on new flood defences? In respect of the warning that we have now had about global warming, it is essential in the context of the fuel crisis that we have an informed public debate in this country. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to lead that debate and put the issue on the national agenda?

Mr. Prescott: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is aware that the issue is very much on the agenda. I was very careful to make that point, as was my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It is difficult for politicians to suggest that global warming may be to blame as it looks as if we are finding an excuse, but the general public read the papers and realise that there is something in it. Those of us who have argued that case for a long time are pleased about that. We are looking at new criteria on cost benefits. It is exactly what we need to do.

Mr. Nick Gibb: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and the Minister for the Environment for coming down to Bognor Regis on Sunday to see for himself the damage done to hundreds of homes by the tornado that struck the town on Saturday evening.
The Secretary of State is right to praise the emergency services. On Saturday evening and throughout the weekend the police, fire and ambulance services and trading standards and housing officers worked closely together repairing roofs, closing roads and finding alternative accommodation for people who were evacuated from their homes.
Until recently, tornadoes have been very rare in Britain, but the Secretary of State will be aware that in Pagham, just a few miles west of Bognor Regis, there was a small tornado last year. There were also tornadoes in Selsey in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Clearly, weather patterns are changing. On the coast we are now seeing much greater extremes of weather, with storms delivering quantities of rain in very short periods of time.
Therefore, we should be taking measures to deal with changing weather patterns. As well as extra sea defences, surely we should now reconsider the level of new housebuilding that the Secretary of State is demanding for the south coast. It is resulting in houses being built on land that has traditionally been regarded as a flood plain because there is simply nowhere else to put them. Will he now take into account the consequences of more building on flood management policies and reduce the number of houses that he is demanding to be built in West Sussex and the coastal counties?

Mr. Prescott: I note that the hon. Gentleman got in his political postscript, but I am grateful for his remarks about


my right hon. Friend's visit to Bognor Regis. The House would want to express its sympathy for the people there, who faced great difficulties with the tornadoes. He made a valuable point about the increasing number of tornadoes. They are very difficult to deal with, whatever preparations are made. We should remember that France lost 10 million trees last year in a tornado that would have hit the south-east but changed direction at the last minute. We must not assume that tornadoes will not hit this country. They are much more difficult to deal with than the flooding and some of the other problems.
Presumably, the hon. Gentleman believes that we are trying to force more housing on his local authority. As I said to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the previous Administration increased housebuilding in Kent, against the wishes of the local authority, so they must have thought that more houses were needed than the local authority thought. Also, one must not make the assumption that more houses mean more land. We made it clear that the amount of land considered necessary for housing in Serplan and in our calculation is the same. We simply need a higher density of housing.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the experience of the fragmentation of the railways enhance the case for the privatisation of air traffic control?

Mr. Prescott: No.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Secretary of State please take a personal interest in the lack of joined-up government which is having a serious effect on Lindfield in my constituency, where an on-going dispute between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency has led to no action being taken, for a very long time, on a serious flooding problem? I join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in calling for urgent work to be done on refining the criteria for flood defences.
Will the Secretary of State consider seriously the points made by other hon. Members from Sussex and elsewhere about overbuilding on the flood plain?

Mr. Prescott: It would help us all if I assumed that every Tory thought that, so they would not have to bring it up in every question.
I do not know the details about the flooding in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am concerned about it, so I will investigate and write to him.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. This morning I visited a constituent, Mr. Alan Butt, who runs the Anchor inn, beside Tintern abbey. The inn was severely flooded a couple of days ago and has been flooded eight times in the past 10 years. The flooding was caused not by the River Wye but by excess water running off the local hillsides. That reveals the lack of investment that local authorities have been able to put into flood prevention. In his review of these matters, will my right hon. Friend consider the powers and resources available to local authorities, so that they can have a similar flood prevention role to that of the Environment Agency?

Mr. Prescott: On local authority finances, we have increased the amount for flood management in the

standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend makes an important point about water from hillsides, and buildings can also cause flooding. We shall certainly consider those matters in the review.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I remind the Secretary of State that the first instance of flooding this year was on 15 September in my constituency and that the Environment Agency has still failed to report on the causes. Will he ensure that the agency has sufficient resources to deal with the matter properly, quickly and effectively? Will he investigate the role of Southern Water and the incompetent way in which it failed to protect the Portsmouth pumping station, causing many hundreds of people to go through the traumatic experience of losing their homes? Will he also consider the fact that many of those people were not properly insured or not insured at all? Will the Government sympathetically consider supporting the hardship funds that have been set up to help those people through this very difficult situation?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know in sufficient detail the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly investigate it. Sewerage was more of a problem than flooding, but the point is academic if the water is coming in through the front door. I shall certainly investigate Southern Water's inefficiencies in dealing with the problem.
In respect of insurance, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the answer is not to have blanket cover for those who have failed to take out insurance. However, I am concerned that an increasingly serious problem will be that insurance companies might tell people regularly faced with floods that they were not prepared to insure them.

Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason that my town of Reading is not suffering the serious flood damage experienced elsewhere is that many millions of gallons of water at present cover the ancient water meadows to the south of the town? Does he agree that that wholly justifies Labour-controlled Reading borough council's decision consistently to oppose development on that vital flood plain? Such development is suggested every year by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors in Berkshire.

Mr. Prescott: That sounds correct. I will go along with it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: May I add to the praise for the emergency services? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Robertsbridge in my constituency has been flooded four times in a year, and twice in the past three weeks. I am sure that he will understand the sense of devastation among local residents. Will he assure them that he will eliminate delays in Bellwin scheme assistance? Will he urge the Environment Agency to hold a meeting in the village as soon as possible, to ensure that the questions raised in last week's Adjournment debate can be answered and that local voices are heard in planning what else can be done to try to prevent the flooding happening again?

Mr. Prescott: Sir John Harman has told me that the agency does hold meetings, but I shall take up the matter


with him. What the hon. Gentleman suggests certainly should happen, and I believe that it will. The agency's relationships with Members of Parliament and constituents are very important.
I shall also look into the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about what we can do to improve what has already been achieved. No hon. Member ever believes that the Bellwin mechanism is fast enough, and I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Andy King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to do everything possible to alleviate the suffering caused to people by floods. I was amazed at the near hypocrisy expressed by Conservative Members about building on flood plains. I urge them to come to Kenilworth to see for themselves what has happened there as a result of building on the flood plain by Conservative councils and under the previous Conservative Government.
The Environment Agency is working very hard to implement a flood alleviation scheme in Kenilworth, to which it has allocated £200,000. However, the scheme has run up against an obstacle in English Heritage, which is talking about a scheme that would require much more in the way of funds. Will my right hon. Friend use every power available to him to bring the two agencies together with the local authorities so that a flood alleviation scheme in Kenilworth can be put in place that will end my constituents' suffering?

Mr. Prescott: I shall certainly see what I can do to bring the agencies together. There is no reason why they should not come together to reach some agreement, even if it is one that is not acceptable to my hon. Friend. I reserve judgment on the matter, but it is important and I will do what I can.
My hon. Friend makes some powerful points about flood plains. The House should remember that the previous Administration merely published a circular—a type of advice note—on the problem in 1992. Most houses on flood plains were built by Tory councils under a Tory Government. The Opposition still want local councils to make such decisions, even though difficulties such as my hon. Friend described tend to arise. However, 10 per cent. of the population live in houses built on what are presently defined as flood plain fields, and we have to take that into account.

Mr. John Burnett: The regulator apparently puts repairs to foul water and surface water drainage low on the list of priorities contained in his guidance to water companies. Given the increased incidence of flooding, will the Deputy Prime Minister invite the regulator to reconsider those priorities and to encourage water companies to give repairs to drainage pipes for foul and surface water a far higher priority than hitherto?

Mr. Prescott: One of the first things that the Government did on coming to office was to make it clear to the water authorities that there was far too much wastage of water, and that they had to start mending the pipes. They have done that, and wastage has fallen from something over 30 per cent. on average to nearer 20 per cent. That is a step forward.
I do not know enough about the point that the hon. Gentleman makes to be specific in my reply, but I will draw what he has said to the regulator's attention. I will then write to the hon. Gentleman with the regulator's response.

Sir David Madel: At his meeting on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman urge Railtrack to have an extensive local advertising campaign so that commuters may know how long it will take to do this vital work and when the rail timetables will be restored to normalcy?
Secondly, does he agree that if we are to make real progress on the reduction of global warming, somebody has to find a way of persuading the Americans to use less energy?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I have made constantly to the Vice-President and others, about how America must lead the way in these matters. The Americans have committed themselves to targets; however, it is one thing to do that but another to achieve them, particularly where the use of oil and energy is concerned. Still, we have to continue with the arguments. Some people said that the Americans would not sign up for anything, but they did. Now we must ensure that the policies are implemented. That is what The Hague meeting is about.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about getting Railtrack and others to give more information. I went to my railway station on Sunday to find out about the trains on Monday morning. There was a big queue, but only one person was giving advice and selling tickets. I should have thought, given the crisis, that more people would have been available at the stations to give such information. We have asked Railtrack to report on that on Thursday. People are entitled to know what is happening and what is causing problems—not knowing leads to frustration, and we intend to try and end that.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I join my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his tremendous work in taking a lead in Kyoto. Now that it is clear from nearly all the scientific evidence around the world that climate change is real and is here to stay, we must redouble our efforts to improve public understanding of some of the issues so that people can use direct measures to reduce their energy consumption. We need to improve the debate about the future of power generation in this country to ensure that we do more and more to improve our contribution to the future of Kyoto protocols.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes important points. Perhaps we could start here, by reducing the temperature in our offices and in the House of Commons. That would be a step in the right direction. With regard to power and energy efficiency, our climate change levy is designed to do precisely that.

Mr. David Heath: Speaking for a constituency that floods each and every year, I suggest that prevention is better than cure. We will not deal with the problem simply by building higher and higher walls.


Should we not look at the management of whole river catchment systems and consider involving more than one Department in that process? For instance, we could use farms that would otherwise be lying idle to retain water and prevent the flooding of places where people live.

Mr. Prescott: I support the hon. Gentleman's idea, and we will look at it seriously. It is not just about building banks—the rise and fall of water is so great—but about how much water is getting into our waterways and whether we can manage the system more effectively. I think that we can, and it means looking again at planning and building regulations and other things that need to be considered to manage the situation properly, and we intend to do that.

Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that the real cause of these extreme weather conditions has very little to do with housebuilding in Kent and far more to do with 100 years of burning fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when the Government consider their future policy on fuel duty, the principles of the Kyoto protocol and the tough targets on CO2 emissions will underpin that policy?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend can be sure that that is exactly the course that I advocate with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Michael Howard: For my constituents in Folkestone, the considerable disruption and inconvenience caused by the weather were aggravated by the closure of the M20 motorway for use, yet again, as a lorry park under Operation Stack. Now that Kent county council has identified alternatives to the motorway for this purpose, will the Government take action to put an end to a state of affairs which, for my constituents, is quite unacceptable?

Mr. Prescott: It is difficult to deal with such problems unless the lorries can be moved on. That is probably the best way to deal with the matter. I am prepared to listen to other ideas, although it is hard to think what they might be. I support the action.

Mr. Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend referred to the many homes built on flood plains. Bearing in mind our current knowledge, does he think that those who, contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency, build homes on flood plains, bear some responsibility towards those whose homes flood? Might that responsibility include making a contribution towards compensation?

Mr. Prescott: The Environment Agency has objected to building on flood plains in relatively few cases. Our new planning guidance, which I mentioned in my statement, will make it clear that our preference is against building on flood plains and that the approach has to be scaled in different ways, because there are many different types of flood plain. For example, although Holland is one entire flood plain, houses can be built everywhere because the appropriate investments are made to deal with water dispersal.

Mr. David Chidgey: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in extending the House's

sympathy to the residents of Allbrook, which is in my constituency? They and their properties were engulfed by 5 ft of mud and water on Monday morning. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar stories. Will he also congratulate those residents on using their own resources to clear out their homes with equipment and pumps?
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his statement that 0.2 per cent. of a local authority's annual budget should be allocated for contingencies and emergencies. If that is correct, what plans does he have to upgrade or modify the guidelines that are issued to local authorities to ensure that they have adequate contingency and emergency plans in place to deal with such events?

Mr. Prescott: That is a fair point. In such situations, we make statements in the House but the reality is that people may have to spend weeks drying out their homes with heaters or pumps. I learned many lessons in Stratford, and I shall take up the points that the hon. Gentleman made in my discussions with local authorities.

Mr. John Redwood: What immediate action will the Deputy Prime Minister and the Environment Agency take to ensure that, the next time there are heavy rains, we can keep open the M25, the A3, other motorways and main trunk roads, and railway lines? It is his responsibility to offer protection against flooding. What will he do to ensure that my constituents can get to work and school next time that there are heavy rains, although they could not do so this time?

Mr. Prescott: It is becoming increasingly clear—I referred to this earlier—that roads, including the M25, were flooded because inadequate pumps were used in an attempt to save money. The right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he covered every eventuality when he was in government. On the railway system, it is certain that inadequate investment for a couple of decades at least—more, I think—resulted in the failures that we are trying to deal with today. It is a pity that he does not show a bit more humility.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The Deputy Prime Minister earlier said that he had had to travel a lot recently. Does he accept that there is a link between increases in air travel and global warming? Will he note that there is no tax on air fuel and that the present system wastes fuel? What ideas will he take to the Netherlands next month to secure an international agreement on that, and what proposals do the Government have to regulate the current waste of air fuel and its environmental consequences, and on the polluter pays principle?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. We have argued the international case in all the national and international arenas. All nations need to reach agreement—we need a global agreement and a global solution. Although that matter is not in the Kyoto agreement, we are pressing the case very hard.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the sympathy that he expressed for those, including the hundreds in my constituency, who have suffered great loss in their homes and of their possessions because of flooding. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Epping Forest district council


emergency response team, which was able to go straight into action late on Sunday night because of good early warning systems, and which helped to alleviate problems? Will he also pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations, including the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross, which helped people who had to be evacuated, and the Royal Engineers? Will he also thank those who provided lifeboats? We do not have any in Epping forest, because we rarely need them.
If the Secretary of State is right about the fact that flood alleviation schemes are not suitable for the more severe weather conditions that he has predicted, will the Government give us more money to provide more efficient schemes?

Mr. Prescott: I have already told the House that we have been giving more funds, but in the end it is about reorganising. Of course I will join the hon. Lady in thanking all the people who helped. They are the unsung heroes, and I hope that she makes the front page.

Dr. Peter Brand: The Deputy Prime Minister has had to make a statement because of exceptional weather circumstances. Does he recognise the anxiety of the people in Ryde in my constituency, who live in fear of flooding every time that there is moderate rainfall because they rely on pumps that are 30 years old for their land drainage? Will he ensure that, when we finally have an agreed scheme, that is funded? In the meantime, will he look sympathetically at the plight of people who cannot insure their homes, not because of exceptional weather circumstances but because of the failure of the public authorities to install a proper drainage scheme?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and it is one to which I referred. If one is constantly under threat, one cannot get insurance. Those are the people who face real difficulties in areas where flooding is likely. I imagine that the matter comes under the flood defence authority, or perhaps one of the drainage or water authorities. I will make inquiries and write to him.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Secretary of State knows that Selsey in my constituency has now been hit twice by tornadoes in three years, although yesterday's was much less severe than the very worrying tornado that did great damage three years ago. Given the huge amount of water that has fallen on the downs, Chichester will be vulnerable to flooding for the whole winter. My constituents were heartened by the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week in an Adjournment debate. He said that grant aid was ready and waiting to ensure that the scheme to alleviate the danger of sea flooding in Selsey and the Chichester flood relief scheme are not delayed.
Let me bring the Secretary of State back to building in the flood plain. I am not making a party political point and I hope that he will take it in a non-partisan way, but if huge numbers of extra houses are demanded in an area such as Chichester, where large areas are virtually off-limits for construction because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty—part may soon be a national

park—much of the construction will have to be in places that are vulnerable to flooding. Therefore, when he looks at planning policy guidance 25, will he reconsider the level that he is demanding for the construction of new housing in my constituency?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in an Adjournment debate, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. As I understand it, the funding is available, but it is a matter of getting the preferred option and agreement so that it is there. We will put on pressure to achieve that as quickly as possible and we will get a settlement. On Chichester and housing, I do not know the exact details. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in December, we will respond to the various controversies concerning the amount of housing to be available. I am not sure of the allocation for Chichester. In general—this is a sound point—we have made it clear that our housing requirements could be met with the same amount of land used by Serplan by imaginative planning and much higher density housing. I suspect that the housing density in Chichester is one of the lowest in the south-east.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Yesterday, homes in Ross-on-Wye in my constituency were flooded for the first time and, in the city of Hereford, the Belmont roundabout was again under water, causing a traffic gridlock at the junction of two trunk roads. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Agency has applied to become the navigation authority for the River Wye and that the public inquiry into the matter closed in July 1997. The Government have not decided whether to accept the recommendations of the inquiry. Will he look into the matter, consult with his colleagues in the Welsh Office and the Welsh Assembly and ensure that that gridlock is soon past?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know the reason, but I will certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether a navigation authority would have a direct effect in cases such as the flooding to which he referred, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of the floods—by no means the most serious, but not insignificant—is that many right hon. and hon. Members, certainly those with offices in No. 7 Millbank and possibly those in other buildings, received no delivery of mail yesterday and that it was a source of particular distress to me to be deprived of the concerns and opinions of my Buckingham constituents? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out whether we can establish from the Post Office how much, if any, mail was damaged or destroyed?

Mr. Prescott: That is a matter for the House authorities. I have no doubt that, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter in this way, it will be brought up, although perhaps we are all glad that he was not able to get his mail out.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware that, in mid-Wales, where we regularly experience flooding, we have experimented with lowering the water


level in one of the reservoirs and that has helped a little? Will he consider a similar experiment in other places that suffer heavy flooding? Will he also ensure that some of the £400 million comes to mid-Wales, where we regularly suffer a great deal because the water table is already saturated?

Mr. Prescott: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that matter is devolved to the Welsh Assembly, where a statement is being made on it today. Nevertheless, he makes a central point and I shall take it into account.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: In my constituency, there are at least 12 flooding hot spots, which flood regularly when there is heavy rain. First, may I again draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)? As the regulator has told Thames Water that, within its pricing formula, for the next two years, it can protect no houses from the threat of sewage flooding, the matter must be addressed. If the proposed water Bill is the right vehicle to do so, I hope that it can be used in that way.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman restore to the borough of Reigate and Banstead the money earmarked for flood defences that was removed from the standard spending assessment about 18 months ago?

Mr. Prescott: In these circumstances, it is possible for local authorities and people affected by flooding to take an interim determination. I am not sure how that works or whether it fits the present circumstances, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and try to spell the matter out.

Stem Cell Research

Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow the use of early embryonic tissue for the purposes of research into the development of regenerative therapies.
I welcome the opportunity to bring before the House the recommendations of the Donaldson report on stem cell research. The report of the chief medical officer, published in August, made a series of careful recommendations that the Government have fully supported. It is to the Government's credit that they have stated their support for those proposals—some of which are contained in the Bill—despite media hype on the issue and despite some of the misinformation put out by some opponents of even carefully regulated progress on the matter.
Many hon. Members will have received letters opposing the Bill from their constituents; some—if not most—of those people were organised to lobby on the subject by so-called pro-life organisations, as is their legitimate right. However, I urge the House to remember that—on the other side of the argument—people feel equally strongly that ethical, scientific progress be allowed.
On such matters of conscience, people with similar political views can hold different opinions based on what each person feels to be right ethically and morally. In such circumstances, parliamentarians are generally allowed a free vote on the matter and it is non-party political.
Many of my constituents will feel very strongly in favour of extending the existing law on embryo research and others will feel very strongly against such a change and may wish to repeal the laws that already allow research to take place. In cases such as this, Members of Parliament will not be able to satisfy both sides, and they must come to a considered view. However, those constituents who take a different view to mine have a right to expect three things when I vote on such an issue of conscience: first, that I respect their viewpoint; secondly, that I give a straight answer; and, thirdly, that I have carefully thought about the issues.
I ask the House to support moves to allow stem cell research on early embryos and to support moves to reaffirm the existing prohibition on reproductive cloning where such embryos would otherwise be allowed to developed well beyond the legal 14-day limit. It is understood that the Government will introduce regulations to implement those recommendations. That will not be before time, because Parliament has not had the chance to consider this matter since the issue of so-called cloning hit the headlines more than three years ago, since when seven expert ethical and scientific bodies have called for those changes in the law. Today's short exchange is a long overdue start of public and parliamentary discussion of the proposals.
I wish to discuss the benefits of stem cell research. It is hoped that this research can find ways of allowing patients with cancer, organ failure, degenerative diseases—such as Parkinson's disease and arthritis—or spinal cord injury to have a so-called transplant of some of their own cells that have been reprogrammed to replace the missing, failing or cancerous cells. In that case, there is a real prospect of finding cures—without the problem of rejection or drug


toxicity—for debilitating, painful and/or fatal diseases that affect hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Groups representing patients with those diseases, such as the Parkinson's Disease Society, leading medical authorities, such as the Royal Society, campaigning and research charities, led by the co-ordinating Association of Medical Research Charities, and major funding bodies, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, all support my view of the enormous value of the research.
There is confusion about the legal situation and I wish to clarify that. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was introduced by the previous Government, the use of the test-tube baby, or in vitro fertilisation, technique inevitably leads to the creation of more embryos than can be safely implanted back into the mother's womb. Under the Act, the spare embryos must be frozen for future use or be destroyed within 14 days. In the interval, the Act allows research to be carried for five—and only five—medical purposes: infertility, miscarriage, congenital disease, contraception and genetic abnormalities.
Three separate authorities, all of which have had both medical and theological input, have considered the question of whether stem cell research should be added to that limited list. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the chief medical officer's inquiry—the Donaldson report—have all come to the conclusion that there is no moral or ethical barrier to extending the list of purposes to cover stem cell research, but that the existing ban on reproductive cloning should continue. Leading ethical bodies, such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the British Medical Association, have also considered the matter and agree.
Clearly, there is much mainstream support for an extension of the research purposes permitted and it is impossible to ignore that body of opinion. That may indeed by why the Government have supported the proposals and said that they plan to recommend this law change to Parliament.
However, there are several things that my Bill and the proposals are not about. They are not about undermining the special status accorded to the embryo. Embryos of up to 14 days are much smaller than the head of a pin and the 14-day cut-off is chosen because that is the earliest time at which the first beginnings of the structure—the primitive streak—that would eventually turn into the central nervous system can appear. Research on the cells involves microscopic techniques and there is no question of experimenting on anything that remotely resembles a foetus or of there being sentient life involved. The Donaldson report points out that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority must ensure that the research proposals are the only way to achieve progress on this matter.
Many people—although not I believe a majority—sincerely and consistently believe that life begins at conception and that the fertilised egg and early embryo have exactly the same rights to life and integrity as a viable foetus, baby or adult. That appears to be the view of some here, and I respect it. However, it is not a view that I share, and nor is it held by most religious and ethical authorities in this country.
Some have argued that embryos should not be used as spare parts for surgery or treatment, but it is not the intention to use embryos as the source of cells to cure degenerative diseases, organ failure or cancer. If such research is successful, it will be possible to derive all the stem cells needed from the patient's own cells, without the need to use embryos. However, as the only source of appropriate stem cells at present is from early embryos, some limited research on embryonic tissue is essential if our medical researchers are to achieve an understanding of the conditions under which adult stem cells can be derived.
Even if it were desirable to use embryo-derived stem cells to cure disease, the very short supply of donated eggs or embryos would prevent that. Such a donation is a very significant step for a woman to take. Hon. Members can therefore be reassured on that point. It has been suggested that adult stem cells can already be used and that there is therefore no need to undertake research on embryonic stem cells. That is not the case according to the overwhelming majority of medical and scientific opinion that I have cited.
Adult stem cells hold real promise, but there are some significant limitations to what can be accomplished with them. However, if the research is successful, it is hoped that it will be possible to derive all the stem cells needed from a patient's own cells. Embryonic stem cell research would be a temporary step necessary to develop ways of using adult stem cells. Some have claimed that that would be a step on the road to reproductive cloning. On the contrary, I support the proposal that the existing ban on reproductive cloning should be reinforced with a new law against it, as recommended by Donaldson and supported by the Government.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, under which such matters are regulated in the United Kingdom, is widely recognised as the most comprehensive legislation in the world and as being effective at preventing abuses of the technology. Donaldson and the Government are right to follow the path of a further ban on reproductive cloning.
Some point out that the European Parliament has voted in favour of a ban on stem cell research. However, the European Union does not have precedence over the United Kingdom's laws on such scientific research. The EU motion opposes not only stem cell research but abortion, which has been legal in this country for 33 years, IVF techniques and our own 1990 Act. That Act provides among the strongest safeguards against illegality in such matters to be found anywhere in the world. The vote was narrowly won by a majority of seven, and expressed an opinion of politicians from the mainly Catholic countries of southern Europe. Almost all Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament voted against it.
The proposals in my Bill would not suddenly allow what is called therapeutic cloning. That is already legal under the 1990 Act. They would simply allow that technique to be extended to research into regenerative therapies. I believe that the Donaldson report is a serious one and that the Government are right to support it, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I appreciate that this is a very difficult issue for the House; we are now entering a moral maze. I also appreciate the great


knowledge and commitment brought to such matters by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Many hon. Members will be desperately concerned about the appalling diseases, especially in children, that could be dealt with by such research. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service in bringing the matter forward. However, I shall oppose the Bill for three reasons.
First, I believe that it is unethical. I shall deal with that in a moment. Secondly, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, I believe that it could pave the way to human cloning. Lastly, also contrary to what he says, I believe that it is unnecessary; the use of adult stem cells represents an alternative.
The House will agree that the ethical issues are probably the most important. Every hon. Member was once an embryo, and we are talking about people who could develop into full human beings. I, and many others, believe that the use of early embryonic tissue—or unborn children, for that is what they are—purely for their cells is morally and ethically repugnant. The process proposed involves taking the stem cells of young embryos, growing them into other body tissues and experimenting on them to develop new body parts for the sufferers of some diseases. However, that will involve the artificial creation of thousands of human embryos purely to use them and then kill them. I believe that that is wrong.
If, like me, the House believes that one cannot draw a line during the development of an unborn child and say that one day it is a human being and the next it is not, or that one minute it is a human being and the next it is not, the only logical and ethical conclusion is that life begins at conception.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cut-off point of 14 days. Photographs recently taken by a Swedish photographer clearly show the development of the brain and an obvious distinction between the two lobes in a 14-day-old foetus. The hon. Gentleman is talking about research into an embryo in which brain cells are growing at the rate of 100,000 neurons a minute. Surely it cannot be said that such growth is not that of an unborn child. We were all at that stage once, and we developed into fully grown people. It surely cannot be argued that it is ethical to perform experiments on such unborn children and to harvest them purely for their stem cells. To allow the creation of life purely for commercial ends and research would take away the inherent value of individuals and their right to life. It would be to treat them purely as a means to an end; as something to be used and then discarded.
As long ago as 1956, the World Medical Association argued that the interests of society should never take precedence in research over those of the individual. It clearly included in its definition of the individual "identifiable human material". That, therefore, included embryos. All of us in this House totally reject the claim by past totalitarian societies that medical research could put the interests of society over those of the individual. To pass the Bill and to argue that embryos—each of which is capable of developing into a full, sentient human being—should be so used would be very dangerous indeed.
The use of early embryonic tissue is thus ethically reprehensible because it allows the creation and destruction of human life on a vast scale. No fewer than 277 embryos were used and destroyed in the creation of

Dolly the sheep alone. That takes away the inherent value of the human being and raises the spectre of abuse of the individual in the name of the good of society. That is not acceptable.
My second argument, with which I hope some will agree, is that to allow research into early embryonic tissue would be to allow the development of human cloning, which would inevitably lead to full reproductive human cloning. The process is the same; the difference is only a matter of degrees. The cell nuclear replacement process involves the insertion of a cell from someone into the emptied egg cell, which then divides and multiplies, just as any embryo would. The development of therapeutic research requires the extraction and use of the stem cells that are formed by the egg as it multiplies. It would be only one stage further to allow the egg to develop, implant it into a foster mother and allow it to be born. Thus, we would have the full clone of a human being. Many scientists believe that that is inevitable. Surely, in this of all places, we would want to draw a line to prevent human cloning.
Finally, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, the greatest tragedy of this debate is that research with early embryonic tissue is not inevitable. It is not even essential to development of the life-saving cures of which we hear so much. There is an alternative that is far less ethically controversial: the use of adult stem cells. Such cells are similar to embryonic stem cells, but in some ways better suited to the job. They are more stable and it is easier for scientists to control them.
Recent research has shown that adult stem cells can be just as effective at developing into new tissue. Scientists in Florida have shown that bone marrow stem cells taken from adults can be turned into immature nerve cells and so could be used to help combat diseases such as Parkinson's. As more research has been conducted, adult stem cells have proved to be far more effective than scientists believed. The beauty of the alternative is that it deals with consenting adults; people give permission. The danger of the hon. Gentleman's Bill is that it would deal with people who, by definition, have no control.
I ask the House to reject the Bill on three grounds: it is unethical and morally repugnant, it could lead to full human cloning and, above all, it is not necessary. I appreciate all the vigour and concern that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate, but as C.S. Lewis said:
The softest road to hell is the gradual one, the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without sign posts.
I believe that the Bill is a gradual, soft and inevitable road to hell, and I urge the House to reject it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 175.

Division No. 315]
[4.49 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Begg, Miss Anne


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ashton, Joe
Bercow, John


Banks, Tony
Beresford, Sir Paul


Barnes, Harry
Blackman, Liz


Barron, Kevin
Boswell, Tim


Beard, Nigel
Brake, Tom






Brand, Dr Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McDonnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mallaber, Judy


Chidgey, David
Maxton, John


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Clwyd, Ann
Miller, Andrew


Dalyell, Tam
Mountford, Kali


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Oaten, Mark


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
O'Neill, Martin



Öpik, Lembit


Donohoe, Brian H
Plaskitt, James


Drown, Ms Julia
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rendel, David


Efford, Clive
Robertson, Laurence


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Rogers, Allan


Etherington, Bill
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fabricant, Michael
Sarwar, Mohammad


Flynn, Paul
Savidge, Malcolm


Follett, Barbara
Sedgemore, Brian


Forth. Rt Hon Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gapes, Mike
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gidley, Sandra
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Todd, Mark


Iddon, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mr. Crispin Blunt and


Keetch, Paul
Dr. Ian Gibson.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cotter, Brian


Amess, David
Cox, Tom


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Crausby, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cummings, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baker, Norman
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Dawson, Hilton


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Day, Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Duncan, Alan


Best, Harold
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Edwards, Huw


Brady, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Breed, Colin
Faber, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fearn, Ronnie


Browne, Desmond
Flight, Howard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burnett, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Burns, Simon
Fraser, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Galloway, George


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl



Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gray, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Green, Damian


Cann, Jamie
Greenway, John


Cash, William
Grieve, Dominic


Chope, Christopher
Hammond, Philip


Clappison. James
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hayes, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hood, Jimmy





Horam, John
Prior, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Quinn, Lawrie


Hurst, Alan
Randall, John


Jenkins, Brian
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Mrs Fiona(Newark)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Robathan, Andrew


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Kidney, David
Rowlands, Ted


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roy, Frank


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
St Aubyn, Nick


Lammy, David
Sanders, Adrian


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Shepherd, Richard


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Lidington, David
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Loughton, Tim
Spicer, Sir Michael


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


McCabe, Steve
Steen, Anthony


Macdonald, Calum
Streeter, Gary


McFall, John
Stunell, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Swayne, Desmond


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Syms, Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


MacShane, Denis
Taylor, David (NW Leis)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McWilliam, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Malins, Humfrey
Trend, Michael


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tynan, Bill


Martlew, Eric
Vis, Dr Rudi


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Walter, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Ward, Ms Claire


Meale, Alan
Wardle, Charles


Mudie, George
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Webb, Steve


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wells, Bowen


O'Hara, Eddie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Olner, Bill
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paterson, Owen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pearson, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Pond, Chris
Mrs. Ann Winterton and


Pound, Stephen
Mr. Jim Dobbin.

Question accordingly negatived.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PRISONS

That the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Amendment of Section 10) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2024) dated 25th July 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.

INVESTIGATORY POWERS

That the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2563) dated 20th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd September, be approved.

That the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2665) dated 28th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th September, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Children Leaving Care Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1

FURTHER DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TOWARDS CHILDREN WHOM THEY ARE LOOKING AFTER

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person who are and persons or classes of person who are not suitable to act as personal advisers under the provisions of sections 19C. 23B(2), 23C(3) and 23D(1).'.
Three months have elapsed between Committee and Report. I am sure that all hon. Members need to cast their minds back to the issues that were raised three months ago. The gap means that the Government have had extra time in which to reflect on some of the excellent points that we made in Committee, and it has also allowed for some fresh thinking by us.
The Bill has a strong measure of support from all parties. We recognise that the system fails care leavers dismally. The facts are worth repeating for any hon. Members who did not participate in earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill, or for whom July is a long time ago. Seventy-five per cent. of young people leaving care have no educational experience and 50 per cent. are unemployed. I am especially struck by an appalling statistic—that up to 25 per cent. of young women leaving care are pregnant or have a child. We, as a corporate parent, are not doing a good job for care leavers. That is the reason for the Bill.
On Report, we want to press several amendments and hear the Government's views on them because they cover points that, on reflection and careful re-reading of all the records of proceedings for the Committee stage, would leave the Bill less effective than it would be if we could persuade the Government to accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 11 would add the provision:
The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person…who are not suitable to act as personal advisers…
We believe that that is important. As parliamentarians, I am sure that we know that care leavers are among the most vulnerable people in our society. We therefore need to be extremely streetwise about putting them in a position of trust with a personal adviser. We have all learned some hard lessons from our experience of children's services, especially in north Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom where it has been revealed that unscrupulous individuals prey on children.
We need to understand that the role of personal adviser is one that could be attractive to unscrupulous persons who seek to prey on vulnerable children or young persons. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen that understanding. We remain concerned about the specific training and qualifications required of young persons' advisers. It is a particular concern of the National Children's Bureau.
It was made clear by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on Report in the other place, that in his view the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from persons who now work with children in care or those leaving care. That was put forward as a point of reassurance to their Lordships. Lord Hunt was saying that those still concerned about the matter need not be.
I still have two residual concerns. Although there are planned changes to the training and development of social workers under the Care Standards Act 2000, it has been acknowledged by the Government that child development has been an area in the training of social workers that may not have had the full attention that it requires. That will be especially important in relation to the new role of personal advisers. If the majority of them are to be drawn from the group of people whom we would now regard as social workers, we need to be sure that in the course of their training attention is drawn to child development. Understanding the needs and predicaments of young persons leaving care has much to do with understanding how children behave, particularly when they have had poor experiences of family life and bad experiences from the past, which they carry as luggage when going forwards.
That is why we endorse the concern of the National Children's Bureau that the training and qualifications of personal advisers should be spelled out more clearly. Although Lord Hunt sought to reassure their Lordships that the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from among those who already work with young persons in care or leaving care, a minority of others could come from completely different walks of life. That is desirable, but some of them may be volunteers. We need to be sure that even those who volunteer to undertake the important role of personal adviser are trained and qualified to do the job. We would regard somebody as not suitable if he or she did not have appropriate training.

Mr. John Bercow: I warmly welcome the amendment. Would the regulations that my hon. Friend has recommended be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure?

Mrs. Spelman: As my hon. Friend knows, and as we discovered at an early stage, as parliamentarians we need to have a belt-and-braces approach. It is not enough in this instance to let things go through on the nod. That is one of the motivations behind the amendment. We feel that there is too much latitude for inadequacy in training people for the important role of personal advisers. They must be qualified and they must be suitable.
Save the Children Fund is another charity that has a real concern. It has said that there could be a situation in which a personal adviser has a conflict of interest. The example that it has given could genuinely arise. If a personal adviser is a social worker and an employee of the local authority, it is possible that he or she may be under considerable pressure to stay within a budget. That is not unusual for a local authority employee. That may compromise the preferable choice that that personal adviser would make in addressing the need of the care leaver for suitable accommodation. The fact that Save the Children Fund recognises that there is a conflict of interest

should lead us all to reflect on the matter. A conflict of interest could be an important reason why someone might not be suitable for the role of personal adviser.
Another important practical consideration has come to light through the work of charitable organisations, which have a great deal of experience in this area. The National Children's Bureau has said that there is no mention in the Bill of the links between advisers of young people who are involved in other recent Government initiatives, such as the youth support scheme which will be established by the Learning and Skills Bill. There is a risk that young people may face a veritable army of advisers. For example, they could find themselves with a social worker, a personal adviser, a case supervisor, a home link worker, a foster carer and, indeed, a Connexions adviser, although that role might double up with that of personal adviser. I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a vulnerable young person who has so many different people to answer to for his or her actions, to consult, to take account of and to get to know. In addition, that young person has to cope with changes in personnel as those advisers change.
It is fair to ask the Government to reassure us that the approach will be streamlined. There is a danger that an array of different people will intervene in a young person's case when it is crucial that that person does not become another statistic in a system that has failed him. The arrangements must remain personal. Young care leavers will undoubtedly view an array of such people as representing the establishment, for which they may not have the warmest regard. There is a danger that young people will feel no more cared for and supported than they were before.
We should reiterate that children have a right to expect unsuitable advisers to be screened out. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that protective measures exist in other parts of the legislation. We know that terrible mistakes have been made. In Committee, I cited the example of how, almost by chance, a local authority uncovered the fact that an employee of another local authority, who held a position of enormous trust looking after vulnerable children, had a criminal record. It took more than a year for the local authority that employed him to do anything about the fact that he was in charge of children despite having a criminal record that would render him completely unsuitable for working in close proximity with children. The criminal record was only uncovered when the individual applied to Wandsworth council to become a foster parent. The council ran the proper checks and discovered that he had a criminal record, of which Lambeth council was completely unaware. We are talking not about theory but about mistakes that happen in practice. Children were let down in that case and we must ensure that they are not let down in the same way again.
All the evidence surrounding inquiries into the running of children's services in which there have been problems has taught us that some local authorities do not have a good track record in this area. I would be the first to acknowledge that great steps have been taken to protect children. People who have contact with children should now be rigorously checked. I have first-hand experience of that because, wisely or unwisely, I volunteered to help with the Sunday school in my local parish church. I have been interested to go through the whole process that requires me to declare whether I have a criminal record,


a health reason why I should not work with children or have had a different name in the past. I even have to supply my birth certificate. I therefore know that checks are made even when an individual is volunteering, but I am nevertheless concerned about the fact that the appointment of a personal adviser relies on such checks by local authorities.
5.15 pm
During the Committee stage of the Care Standards Bill, we learned of the terrible dearth of social workers. They are in short supply, and much of the legislation that we have passed requires them to do more and more. There is a huge demand for their skill, and I should hate the need for them as social advisers to be compromised because of a shortage of time for checks to be made. The amendment will help to ensure that local authorities take seriously the process of establishing whether a person is suitable to act as an adviser.
I want to make another practical point about timing. The Minister explained in Committee how changes in the checking procedure could be helpful, but there is no doubt that there will be a time lag between the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau and local authorities needing to know whether someone is suitable, and has passed the police checks.
On 26 October, a ministerial answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) suggested that the new bureau would be in a position to issue criminal records certificates by around July next year, but the Minister involved said that detailed planning was continuing. That leaves a bit of doubt in my mind. I know that the time is coming, but the needs of care leavers have been clearly identified and the role of personal adviser is key to the success of this part of the Bill. There must be a huge temptation to get the system going, perhaps before the establishment of the very best protection which we hope will be afforded in future. I should like the Minister to reassure me that there will be no gap during which unsuitable persons might be appointed.
We understand how crucial advisers are to the workability of the system. I cannot emphasise that enough. They will be responsible for ensuring that care leavers' pathway plans develop and for adjusting those plans to young persons' changing needs. An adviser will have a close relationship, involving trust and understanding, with a vulnerable care leaver. Advisers will represent the human face of what I have described as the corporate parent. As I said earlier, as a corporate parent we have not done very well in the past in relation to the group that we are discussing.
If the Minister is receptive to our amendment, we shall, I hope, help to remove elements of risk that might cause unsuitable people to gain a position of influence, and to aggravate an already bad situation. A number of care leavers fall through the net, causing the sad statistics that I cited earlier. They may become unemployed, they often become homeless, some become pregnant, and some have young children.
We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but the Minister rejected it, saying that the Government did not want to be too prescriptive and wanted to leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities. As I hope I have made clear, we remain anxious about the discretion of

local authorities. We feel that our amendment would strengthen the Bill and would leave less room for manoeuvre.
One of our major concerns with the Bill is that we have to take quite a lot of it on trust. The Government stated that they would resolve the matter that we are concerned about through statutory guidance, but the question is: what will that be? We do not know. It is yet another example of an empty box. We are being asked to agree the contents without having seen them.
We were invited by the Minister to help him to ensure that the guidance was correct. How can we do that without knowing what it is? Perhaps we shall hear what it is and perhaps that will give us some reassurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for the spirit in which she has moved her amendment. She started by saying that we all had to remind ourselves about the nature, scope and range of the Bill. That is true for those on the Government Benches, as I am sure it is true for those on the Conservative Benches. A long time has elapsed between the Committee stage of the Bill and Report. We all know the reasons for that, but the hon. Lady showed her customary grasp of the detail. I congratulate her on that.
The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a powerful sense of deja vu about the debate: she made exactly the same speech in Standing Committee. I do not want to antagonise her, but my response is likely to be similar to my response to her amendments then, although I shall try to deal specifically with the particular reassurances and assurances that she asked me to give in relation to two particular concerns. One was about the relationship between the young person's adviser and the Connexions service that the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health strongly support and encourage. The other was about the progress of the Criminal Records Bureau and the facility that local authorities will have to check the names of potential young persons advisers against the database that the bureau will maintain.
As I said in Standing Committee, the hon. Lady's argument with the Government is one of process rather than substance. I do not think that her argument is one of substance in relation to the role of young persons advisers, their training, qualifications and suitability to do the job. As I understand it, her argument is essentially that she would prefer those issues to be dealt with by regulations—she is right; if we took that action it would be subject to the negative procedure—instead of setting the procedures for appointing young persons advisers and the detail around that in guidance.
The hon. Lady was slightly wrong to say that I suggested in Standing Committee that all those matters would be left purely to the discretion of local authorities because, as she went on rightly to say, I made it clear that we intended to issue statutory guidance to local authorities on how that discretion should be exercised. Of course, that is guidance that local authorities are required to follow. We are aware, as she is, that substantial issues of policy and consistency need to be addressed around the appointment of that new person—the young person's adviser—who will have, as she rightly said, an important and substantial role in overseeing the implementation of the new arrangements.
What is clear—I agree with the hon. Lady—is that the young person's adviser must be able to build the right relationship of trust with young people. The Government believe that there is no monopoly of those skills and characteristics in any given professional group, or in the public, private or voluntary sectors. In our consultation document entitled "Me, Survive, Out There?" we produced a fairly comprehensive and long list of people who could potentially act as young persons advisers. We must allow for flexibility in the system, so that individual needs and circumstances can be best met.
I believe—I made it clear in Standing Committee and I repeat it—that that is not a suitable matter for regulation, but that statutory guidance is a better mechanism to build in the flexibility that we want. We shall be clear that we envisage a wide field for potential young persons advisers and that the critical point in each case will be whether they are able to work successfully with the individual young person. I believe—it is a matter of common sense, and I am sure that this is where most Members would want to draw the line—that those judgments about suitability are best made through local recruitment and selection processes.
As for defining groups that may not be young persons advisers, that issue has been largely overtaken by the Protection of Children Act 1999, which, subsequent to our discussions in Standing Committee, became law on 2 October.
The hon. Lady was right to say that it is important that vulnerable young people, such as those who have been looked after, should be protected from unsuitable people. I am confident that the legislation will do that. We have taken account of that need and safeguards are already in place—such as police checks, to which the hon. Lady referred and about which I shall say a few words in a moment, and the provisions of the 1999 Act.
We do not envisage that young persons advisers will be recruited to specialise in different age bandings. Indeed, the ideal will be that a young person keeps the same young persons adviser from 16 to 21, or whenever he or she stops receiving support from his or her responsible authority. Consequently, young persons advisers must be able to work with the entire age range, and recruitment will have to take account of the safeguards in place to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. Therefore, I do not think that there is any need to make separate regulations for that purpose as amendment No. 11 invites the House to do.
The hon. Lady asked two specific questions and expressed a particular concern about the Connexions personal advisers. The role of the Connexions personal adviser and that of the adviser appointed under the Bill clearly will be largely similar. It is proposed, therefore, that the advisers for young people aged 16 and over living in and leaving care should usually be their Connexions adviser.
The precise nature of the relationship between the employing authority—for example, a social services department—and the Connexions service is still a matter for consideration. We are examining the details of that relationship. Additionally, proposals are being developed for a major training programme for Connexions advisers, to include those who are appointed as advisers for the purposes of the Bill.
As for the training of young persons advisers who are not going to be Connexions advisers, we made it clear in the "Me, Survive, Out There?" document that local authorities would be able to use an element of their children's special grant—the quality protects money—to ensure that young persons advisers receive the training that we all know they need to receive.
The project remains on target for the Criminal Records Bureau to begin issuing greater numbers of certificates by about July 2001. Meanwhile, the Home Office is examining possible methods of minimising delays in local police forces. I think that it is very important, for reasons that the hon. Lady has rightly identified, that police checks are conducted as expeditiously as possible. That is a basic safeguard which we expect to be in place.
I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the particular responses that I have made on the Criminal Records Bureau and the Connexions advisory service. She is less likely to be satisfied with my arguments on why we prefer to deal with the matter in statutory guidance rather than in regulations. However, I think that it would be wrong to characterise statutory guidance as an ineffective tool. It is not ineffective—it has proven its worth on many occasions and in many settings in which Governments of all persuasions have used the section 7 route to provide guidance to local authorities.
The hon. Lady asked me specifically about how she could know whether the guidance would be appropriate. The fact is that the guidance is not yet ready. If it were, we would certainly let her see it, so that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends could comment on it. I meant what I said in Committee: when the guidance is ready, we shall certainly seek her view and that of other Conservative Members on the appropriateness of that guidance tool. We shall do that not because of nostalgia or sentiment, but because it is the right thing to do.
We want to ensure that consensus on the Bill is maintained. The hon. Lady identified consensus as one of the strong characteristics of our proposals and we are anxious to maintain that. I am sure that she will not mind me saying, however, that we do not think that Conservative Members necessarily have a monopoly on wisdom in the matter. She said that I asked her to help out, but I think that she might have misinterpreted that, as we have very strong ideas about what we want the guidance to cover. Nevertheless, we should certainly welcome her advice and opinions and those of other Conservative Members.
I therefore cannot recommend my right. hon. and hon. Friends to accept amendment No. 11. However, I hope that the hon. Lady has at least been reassured about our intentions on maintaining proper and effective safeguards and that the legitimate points she has made on training and suitability will be properly dealt with in the guidance that we shall be issuing.

Mrs. Spelman: I am grateful to hear the Minister's clear reassurance that there will be some streamlining in the number of advisers who will be working with vulnerable young people and his identification of funds to finance additional training. I have been reassured on both those points.
5.30 pm
There would have been no need to debate the amendment had we seen the draft guidance. One of the problems throughout our consideration of the Bill has been that quite a lot of detailed background information has not been available. Of course, three months have elapsed since we debated the Bill in Committee, but I hope that this evening's debate, which has highlighted some of the Opposition's concerns, will serve to inform the Government as they draft the guidance, to which we wish to contribute by dint of their invitation to us.
To be realistic, we are unlikely to see any draft guidance until it is pretty well in its final stage, so perhaps tonight's debate has served the purpose of enabling us to make a contribution, even if we have reiterated some of the points that we made earlier this year. We feel that they are important and we look forward to seeing the draft guidance. As we have had some reassurances on streamlining, funding and training, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
'23CA.—(1) Any person aged eighteen or over who makes a valid election not to be treated as a former relevant child shall not, so long as such an election is in force, be a former relevant child for the purposes of this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure for the making and withdrawal of elections under subsection 1.
(3) In respect of a person in respect of whom a valid election is in force, a local authority shall not discharge any of the duties in subsections (2) and (3) of section 23C.
(4) Subject to subsection (1C), a local authority may in respect of any person in respect of whom a valid election is in force offer services or assistance of a type required or permitted to be provided under this Act to former relevant children, but shall be under no duty to do so.'.
I cannot allow the Bill to progress without raising what I believe to be an important issue, although in anticipation of what the Minister will say, I have to confess that we debated the matter on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Bill originally focused on children aged 16 and 17. During its passage through the House its scope has been considerably extended to place on local authorities all sorts of duties in relation to people over 18 who left care before reaching that age. We have broadly supported the Government in those changes to the Bill. Indeed, our noble Friends were partly instrumental in making the changes in the other place. However, I fear that in their enthusiasm to ensure that the Government facilitated proper support for care leavers over 18, those in the other place may have lost sight of a rather important and fundamental principle: when we talk about people over 18, we are dealing not with children but with adults who have to be treated as people capable of making decisions for themselves, with all the respect that that implies.
In his reply to the previous debate, the Minister spoke about his desire to build a consensus around this and other measures that seek to protect children. We fully support

that view, but I would suggest to him that to be durable, a consensus must be not merely a consensus between the different views represented in this place at any particular time, but must sit comfortably with the traditions of our legal system.
The Bill places on local authorities a requirement to maintain pathway plans in respect of former relevant children—people who were relevant children when they left care and who are now over 18. It also requires local authorities to keep in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact with them if that contact has been lost. I acknowledge, as I have done before, that that would be a positive measure for the vast majority of children leaving care and we welcome it, but upon becoming adults some children leaving care may wish to put their past behind them and sever the link with the local authority that looked after them during their childhood. The Minister may think that it is right or wrong, helpful or unhelpful, in their best interests or otherwise, but the point is surely that as adults they have that right. The intentions of others, and the outcomes, may be good, but we should not subject a singled-out group of competent adults to compulsion, simply because something is for their own good. We do that only when people's competence is in question.
The essence of the Bill is to normalise the position of care leavers as far as possible and make their treatment as close as possible to that of other, perhaps more fortunate, individuals, and not to single them out for compulsory treatment in a way that marks them apart.
Currently, we have no way of knowing how assiduous local authorities are likely to be in seeking to keep in touch with former relevant children. Without wanting to be too cynical, I must say that much may depend on the financing mechanisms yet to be announced. Local authorities may take a relatively assertive line in seeking to discharge their statutory duty to take reasonable steps to stay in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact if it is lost.
We raised these issues on Second Reading and in Committee, and the Government argued that an opt-out, allowing an adult who is a former relevant child to choose not to be included in the provisions, would allow some local authorities to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. Clearly, we do not want that. A balance needs to be struck. Local authorities must not be given a route that is open to abuse, but fully competent adult care leavers who do not want to participate further in the scheme must be given the right to free themselves from contact with their social services authority. There was a consultation conference on the Government's document, "Me, Survive, Out There?". One of the comments recorded in response to a question about whether it was right to have a plan was:
Some young people have good reason for not wanting anything more to do with Social Services. They shouldn't be forced to have a plan or maintain contact. Their decision should be respected.
We believe that that is right when we are talking not about 16 and 17-year-old children but about 18-year-old adults. The amendment would modify the statutory duty on local authorities to allow for the making of an election by an adult who is a former relevant child, in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. That is important, because it addresses the Government's legitimate concern about creating a loophole through which recalcitrant local authorities might escape. The Secretary of State would


prescribe the way in which the election was made, and indeed the way in which it could be withdrawn. An election in force would relieve the local authority from its obligations to maintain or re-establish contact, and to maintain a pathway plan and appoint a young person's adviser, and indeed would prevent that authority from pursuing those duties. It would not prevent them from offering other types of assistance.
I must draw attention to an error in the amendment. The reference to subsection (1C) should be a reference to subsection (3). The numbering changed between the blue and the white copy, but the subsequent reference in the amendment was not changed.
The amendment is not in any sense intended to be a wrecking amendment. It would recognise the real and important difference between the treatment of care leavers who are still children—minors—and of those who are have attained majority. In the first instance, the local authority must take on the role of the parent and discharge that duty diligently; in the second, the local authority's role is to be supportive, where such support is welcomed by the individual.
This is the third time that we have discussed this matter. I have as yet heard no case for requiring local authorities to maintain plans for, and to keep in touch with, competent adults who have expressed through a mechanism to be defined by the Secretary of State a clear wish to the contrary. The amendment would recognise the fundamental right of a competent adult to choose to be left alone by a local authority.
As I have said before to the Minister, it is imperative that the Bill be in accordance with the spirit at least of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which gives the right to privacy and respect for family life. Therefore, a person who has attained the age of majority should be able to express a desire not to be included in the scheme proposed by the Bill.
My attempts to argue that case on two previous occasions were met with torrents of abuse—not from the Minister, but from Labour Back-Bench Members. Perhaps their absence today means that they have decided that they have lost the argument. However, nothing is more typical of the tendency to interfere and nanny people—so unhelpful in creating good and durable legislation—than this attempt to coerce competent adults into something that they may express a desire not to have.
A moment's reflection shows that it would be wrong for a local authority to monitor competent adults against their express wishes. I thought about the matter at some length over the summer recess, and could think of no circumstances in which it would be morally right to do so. I hope that the House will think carefully again about the implications of what the Bill proposes.

Dr. Peter Brand: Fewer hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening than attended the Committee deliberations. That is clearly a measure of the general support for the Bill. At the risk of going over old ground, I want to say that I support proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment, although my argument is not that advanced by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Clearly, in an ideal world, an unruly 17-year-old in care can become a

competent adult on his 18th birthday, but that does not square with my experience. The argument in favour of support for young people is as relevant for people of 16 as it is for those aged 18 or 19.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman presumably accepts that the law sets a watershed for people at the age of 18. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, people who attain majority are regarded as competent adults.

Dr. Brand: Clearly, I recognise the law, but perhaps my definition of competence differs from the hon. Gentleman's. According to my definition, a competent person can make well-informed decisions for himself about how to lead his life, and can do so without support. I would be worried if all parts of the amendment were accepted. The local authority would then have a licence to have nothing more to do with a particular young person. I would be as worried if parents suddenly said to their child when he or she turned 18, "Never darken our doors again; we have no interest in you." There is a great difference between the requirement to receive all one's sustenance, benefits and means of sustaining oneself from the ages of 16 to 21, as the Bill provides for leavers, and the duty of caring about the outcome of the decisions that they make in their lives.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are not talking about them, but about 18-year-olds. Will he concede that an 18-year-old who wished to distance himself from his family would be entitled to expect his family not to harass him, if that was his clearly expressed wish?

Dr. Brand: Absolutely. I would not give licence to parents to harass, either. However, there is a great difference between continuing care and harassment. I hope that the Bill does not give a power to harass.
What concerns me—which is why I support the first part of the amendment—is that the powers that the Bill gives local authorities over young people who are over 18 are greater than those of the average parent. If young people are in education or are in need of benefit because they are not self-sustaining in the work place, their only means of support is not—as it is for children with parents—a benefits system into which everyone can plug, but through their local authority.
In Committee, I moved an amendment that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge described as a wrecking amendment. When young people—it does not matter to me whether they are 17, 18, 19 or 20—become disaffected with the local authority and refuse to accept its help, is there a mechanism flexible enough to ensure that they are supported in a legitimate way? That is what my amendment was designed to test with the Minister, because I am extremely concerned that when young people who cannot go to a Benefits Agency office, do not qualify for social loans and refuse to be in touch with their local authority take flight, their only means of support is through drug dealing, prostitution or stealing.
We had some discussion on this in Committee. The Minister talked about exceptional arrangements or, by regulation, listing exemption groups. However, having reread Hansard, I am not sure whether that exemption can


be made for individuals when the situation has broken down. Will the local authority and the Benefits Agency liaise when a young person is clearly in need of financial support, and can such support be forthcoming other than through direct contact with the local authority if the authority cannot meets its commitments, even if it wants to, because of that young person's bloody-mindedness?

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is in the classic Liberal Democrat position. He supports some parts of the amendment but not others. Unfortunately, the rules of the House do not allow him to choose which parts he supports. He either supports the whole package or he does not.

Dr. Brand: I am always happy to be rebuked and to learn, but I thought that one of the opportunities available on Report was to explore further with Ministers their approaches to amendments and the Bill. That is why I am happy to support only part of an amendment. How I will vote is a matter that will become clear should we be called on to do so.

Mr. Hutton: I look forward to finding out how the hon. Gentleman intends to vote if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pushes the amendment to a vote.
I must begin from where I would not choose to start by correcting the assessment of the Bill made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is not true to say that we did not envisage this part of the Bill extending to people aged 21. We always saw it that way. The argument in the other place was over whether that should be made explicit in the Bill or implemented through the regulation-making powers that we had originally said we wished to use. His description of a Bill whose character and nature had been fundamentally changed by the amendments accepted in another place is not right. As is made clear in the Bill and in the document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", we always had those points in mind.
Secondly, and more substantially, the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands this part of the Bill, and his concerns are therefore misplaced. He characterised the local authority in conducting its responsibilities as an intrusive arm of the nanny state that would harass and monitor people in some covert, police-style operation. That is completely inaccurate. We do not expect local authorities to exercise their functions and duties in that way.
We argued that point on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I am sad that we seem to have seen no progress in the hon. Gentleman's thinking on it over the summer. However, his friends in the other place did not raise that argument at all, although they had plenty of opportunity to do so. He seems to have got his arguments into a twist. His perfectly understandable arguments about civil liberties are misplaced.
I must also argue with the hon. Gentleman's amendment on the grounds that his attempted solution to the civil liberties deficit that he says that he has identified would be likely to make matters worse rather than better. We explored the reasons why that should be in Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has rightly said. The attempted solution might in fact operate as effective encouragement to some local authorities to

make young people leaving care exercise the choice that the amendment would provide. In that case, the amendment might deny the local authority the opportunity to provide the sort of help that we would wish to vulnerable care leavers—the very people who prompted our concern to legislate.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but they traduce the duties that we want local authorities to have for young people. He misdescribed, in particular, the way in which we expect the duty to keep in touch to operate. We shall deal with that through statutory guidance, which we intend to issue as soon as we can. We shall consult the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the nature of that duty.
The hon. Gentleman did not address the point that we are trying to strike a balance. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, to his credit, did mention that, and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge alluded partly to it. We accept that we are striking out into new territory. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and his party had 20 years in which to address deficiencies in the system for leaving care, and did not do so. We have tried to strike a balance between the needs of young people leaving care, who are often vulnerable, socially excluded, damaged youngsters, and what we expect of a responsible parent—in this case, the local authority.

Miss Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment misses the point that a vulnerable young person of 18 may want nothing to do with the local authority, which will in turn be unsurprised by that. Two years later, at the age of 20, having grown up a bit, the person may seek support. It is not unusual for 18-year-olds to leave home wanting nothing to do with their parents, but for the same people, in their early 20s, to realise that they have cut off all support and seek to return in some way. We must build into the Bill the possibility of rapprochement, should the young person want it.

Mr. Hutton: I agree. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that a recent assessment by the National Children's Bureau, which was published in September, showed that young people who have left care often admit, when they look back, that they were far less ready to live independently than they had thought at the time. Under the amendment, it might be difficult, once the young person has taken an option, for the local authority to discharge the responsibilities that we expect a good parent to deliver.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to say that a competent adult may say that he or she wishes to lead his or her own life exactly as he or she chooses. The Bill will not stop any young person doing that. We are concerned with the duties that a corporate parent, acting as a good and reasonable parent, should have. The hon. Gentleman is a parent himself, and I cannot imagine that he would accept a situation in which he would make no effort to keep in touch with one of his own children should something happen that resulted in that child not wanting to remain in touch. I should certainly wish to remain in touch. No matter what the


difficulties in their relationship, we should expect a parent to make some effort to keep in touch. That is a hallmark of a good parent.
The hon. Gentleman's concerns are misplaced, and he has misdescribed the nature of the duties, particularly the duty to keep in touch. He has characterised that duty as if it were some covert, police-state duty, which it clearly is not. We shall ensure that it is not when we issue statutory guidance.

Mr. Simon Thomas: What would happen if a young adult in the pathway plan made it clear that he or she did not want contact with a local authority? Would that fit with how the pathway plan might work? Does not that point provide a response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)?

Mr. Hutton: Those issues will arise, as the hon. Gentleman knows from experience. We cannot legislate for good relationships between children leaving care and local authorities. We must put in place the right framework of duties and responsibilities, and that is all that we seek to do. We expect pathway plans to be kept under regular review, and if difficulties arise, the pathway plan should reflect them. The plan can ultimately record only the agreement reached between the parties.

Mr. Hammond: I want to be clear on this point. Is the Minister suggesting that the pathway plan could provide for no further contact, which, I think, was the import of the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)?

Mr. Hutton: We should wish to ensure that the duty to keep in touch was preserved at all times. That is an extremely important principle. How it would translate into practice would vary from case to case. In some cases, a young person leading a successful, independent life may feel that minimum contact is necessary, and that could be reflected in the plans. We are not dogmatic about telephone conversations or visits every hour or every day. That would be absurd. We need to tailor arrangements to suit the particular circumstances of the young person concerned. We want flexibility. I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not reassured by all that, and I know that he feels strongly on these matters. I hope, however, that he will draw some comfort from the fact that we intend the arrangements to operate sensibly and realistically but in a way that achieves our fundamental objective for the Bill, which is to ensure that local authorities act in future as responsible and good parents. I argue strongly that it is characteristic of a good parent that he or she should at least try to keep in touch with a child.

Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister. He and I approach the problem from fundamentally different points of view, but I acknowledge, as I hope he would, that we are both well-intentioned.
The Minister referred to the pathway plan of an individual who was leading a successful, independent life, saying that it might propose minimum contact. In whose view would that life be successful? It is the local authority's view. It draws up the pathway plan. That is

precisely the point. It is the nanny approach. The local authority will decide when, if and how one is entitled to break free.
6 pm
The Minister is not correct when he characterises my position as that of having misunderstood the Bill. I understand it well and I agree with him that, whatever it states, it will not prevent young people from going their own way—probably successfully—if that is what they want.
As the Bill is drafted, the local authority will retain a statutory obligation to use its reasonable endeavours to maintain or re-establish contact with the young person. It will retain a statutory obligation to appoint a young person's adviser. The young person's adviser for all those who have gone away and asserted their rights to be completely independent will have a good job because he will not be busy. There will also be a statutory obligation to maintain and update the pathway plan for the young person. Essentially, in the case of someone who has clearly stated his intention to set himself apart from the process, as the Minister has acknowledged young people will de facto be able to do, the local authority should be relieved of its statutory obligation to continue to do all those things laid down in clause 2 and, in case there are over zealous local authorities, should be prevented from pursuing aggressively—not all authorities would do so, but some might—the person in question.
The Minister got himself a little confused when he suggested that his resistance to the amendment was based in part on his desire to avoid abuse by local authorities. At one stage he told us that he did not want to create a mechanism that would allow local authorities to encourage individuals to make an election that would prevent the authority from providing the advice and support that it would like to provide to the young person. If authorities want to provide that, they will scarcely encourage the young person to make an election. I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument. We come at the problem from fundamentally different points of view.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a good point. I hope that we have dealt with it through the proposal that an election could be withdrawn as well as made. A young person who changed his or her mind would not be permanently excluded from the system.
I take exception to the Minister's remark that it took us 20 years in government to protect children effectively. He may want to remind himself of the date of the Children Act—1989—which is, I think, by consensus the basic building block from which we start. Indeed, the architecture of the Bill builds upon that Act. Most hon. Members—I include the Minister—have sought, in debates on this Bill and on others, to emphasise the consensual nature of most of what we do in the House for children.
Of course, the Minister was right to say that the regulations will determine the substance of the matter that I have raised. If they are drafted in such a way as to ensure that local authorities do not pursue individuals who express a clear wish to break free and they do not give authorities incentives to pursue people whom they should not pursue, the practical effect that I am seeking will be achieved. Therefore, although we have to disagree, I am


mindful of the Minister's reassertion today of his commitment to consult with Conservative Members and hon. Members from other parties to produce those regulations.
I will withdraw the amendment and thus spare the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) the embarrassment of having to decide which part of it is most important to him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
'() The assistance given under subsection (4)(a) and (b) may be subject to such conditions regarding adherence by the former relevant child to his pathway plan as the local authority shall reasonably determine.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 4, page 7, line 39, at end insert—
'in accordance with his pathway plan'.
No. 4, in page 7, line 44, after "training", insert—
'in accordance with his pathway plan'.
No. 5, in page 7, line 46, at end insert—
'in accordance with his pathway plan'.

Mrs. Spelman: The amendments are a matter of common sense from the perspective of the corporate parent. The compliance with the pathway plan that we want to achieve will be instrumental in the effectiveness of the Bill.
All eligible relevant and former relevant children and young people must have a pathway plan under the Bill. It will take over from their existing care plan and will run at least until they are 21, covering education, training, career plans and help needed, for example, to move into supported lodgings. Regulations may be made on the review of pathway plans, but it is envisaged that they will be reviewed only every six months.
Having reflected on the matter since the Bill was in Committee in July, we have decided that, from the perspective of the corporate parent and given all the effort and resources that go into drawing up a pathway plan, we need to ensure that it is adhered to. If the Bill is not strengthened in that way, a more minimalist attitude towards compliance with this part of the Bill may result.
This is a classic role for a corporate parent. Many hon. Members will be in a similar position—seeing their children go on to further and higher education and becoming heavily involved in the cost. Parents are diligent in reassuring themselves that their money is spent on the purpose for which it was intended. Many of us who went through further and higher education remember our parents holding us to account about what we had done with the money—not necessarily every penny, but we certainly had to reassure them that we were following the course that we had together agreed. Sometimes, child and parent face the difficult decision to change course halfway through. Changing our minds had consequences—the implications might have been to increase the financial load on the parent. It is no different for corporate parents.
We want to encourage vulnerable young people to obtain educational qualifications. Statistics show that they are often very short of such qualifications. One of the

purposes of the pathway plan is for the young person's adviser and the care leaver to agree together the appropriate development plan. There is little point in all that activity if the young person is simply allowed to depart from the plan. Such a departure might go undetected if the review does not take place more frequently than once every six months.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), asked who were the local authority to judge whether a pathway plan had been successful. He accused the Government of acting like the nanny state. The amendment seems to state that we must judge failure. Is that not a contradictory perspective? If we say what is successful, we are being the nanny state, but if we judge something to be a failure, we are not.

Mrs. Spelman: We do not want to use labels as brutal as "success" or "failure" for this group of young people. Statistics show that 15 per cent. of them are unemployed and 75 per cent. do not have educational qualifications. On the face of it, that looks like failure if one is putting it baldly, but it will not be particularly helpful to attach that tag to such vulnerable young people.
The amendment's purpose, of which the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight, is to assist the young person's adviser to see through the investment made jointly with the vulnerable young individual—let us not talk of success or failure—so that the individual keeps on the agreed course. One of our concerns is that as a review is planned only once every six months, much could come unstitched. I invite the hon. Gentleman to think back to his own further or higher education—during a six-month period much can happen to a young person.
The amendment will help the young person's adviser to take a proactive approach to the implementation of the pathway plan. That is not to say that that would not entail change. If we consider the matter realistically, young people often make their choices quite late in the day, at short notice and so on. My understanding of the explanatory notes supporting the concept of pathway plans is that that is all perfectly possible within the role that the personal adviser would have under the plan.
Such changes should, however, be agreed, just as they would be discussed by a parent and child, who were looking together at further or higher education—as I pointed out. Such changes might be made when young people who had completed one term of a course in a further or higher education establishment came to the conclusion that, at the end of one term, or even after half a term, the course was absolutely not for them. Such occurrences are not unusual.
As matters stand, if the young person's adviser was unable to undertake a review more often than once every six months, half an academic year would be lost. That is important in relation to further education choices. Such courses may last for only two years, so a quarter of that potential for academic furtherance could be lost.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Given the spirit of the hon. Lady's remarks, does she also argue that her proposal would help the young person's adviser to put pressure on a local authority to provide resources for a young person who was following the pathway plan?

Mrs. Spelman: There is no dispute about the Bill placing a duty on local authorities to provide assistance,


but having given public money—both to support the role of the young person's adviser and for the whole process of working together to produce a suitable plan for the young person's development, training and furtherance—it is perfectly reasonable for that local authority to determine whether the assistance is correctly applied and whether benefit is being gained from it. The amendment is clear on that point.

Dr. Brand: I seek clarification. I understand that if the relevant child is receiving money for education or training needs that are not being taken up, there may be an argument for withdrawing the money. However, does the hon. Lady really suggest that
assistance of the kind referred to in section 24B(2), to the extent that his welfare…needs require it
is included under her amendment? If so, that would worry me greatly.

Mrs. Spelman: Welfare is difficult to define precisely, although of course it must be the paramount concern. The focus of our amendment is on consistency between the pathway plan on education and employment choices and what the young person actually pursues. That is a perfectly reasonable position for the corporate parent to adopt and one that a young person will meet in later life. There is accountability for money spent on, or invested in, a person—whether in a business or public service context. There is accountability for resources invested to pursue a particular path of development. It is wholly reasonable that the authority committing those resources should ensure that the outcome reflects the agreed purpose of the initial commitment.
6.15 pm
There will always be accidents, in education or employment, when young people begin a particular course of action and, for good reasons—such as a course being wrapped up for lack of participants—do not complete it. In my constituency, I have encountered that. However, such cases are in the minority; we do not want to multiply them, but to add strength to the Bill and to tighten the role and responsibilities of the adviser.
The amendment, which is a small but important alteration to the Bill, will ensure consistency between the pathway plan and the eventual outcome for the care leaver, to the benefit of that young person. It will increase the responsibility of the adviser to follow up the agreed course of action and to be satisfied that it is being pursued. It is very much in the interests of the welfare of the young person. The amendment is a practical and realistic proposal; it will help to improve the Bill's effectiveness in practice.

Mr. Hutton: This amendment and amendment No. 1 demonstrate some of the turmoil and tension among Conservative Members as to whether they want to take a libertarian view on these matters or whether they are more in favour of the control freak tendency view on the power and role of the state. Amendment No. 1 would have allowed young people to opt out of the arrangements altogether; amendment No. 2 would enforce their compliance with arrangements.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on one or two points on the way that we envisage the operation of the legislation. I hope that then she will not feel the need to push the argument further.
In essence, as I understand her arguments today and during our Standing Committee debates, she and her hon. Friends are concerned that the pathway plan will represent a one-sided bargain and that it will require the local authority to make available significant resources and other support, care and assistance to a young person who might either choose to disregard the terms of the pathway plan or fail in some way to comply with it. That would thus be an unacceptable use of public money and would not encourage the rights and responsibilities that we think necessary in this matter. We are talking about a good parent and the children for whom that parent has responsibility.
The pathway plans will not be one-sided bargains. I make that clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. There are responsibilities and rights in this matter. They need to be addressed and we intend to do that.
As the hon. Lady knows, the pathway plan will set out whatever assistance—for example, with education, training or employment—the responsible authority agrees to provide. The young person's adviser will keep in touch with the young person. There will continue to be reviews of the pathway plan—at least every six months—but a review can, of course, be initiated either by the young person or by the council itself.
If the council became aware that a young person was not complying with his or her plan—either because he was abusing the council's support or for some other reason—of course the council would be able to call a review and, if necessary, to revise the terms of the plan. We intend that type of rolling revision to happen. It is one of the reasons that a young person's adviser would keep in touch with the young person and one of the factors that would determine the level of contact that he and the young person would wish to maintain.
The amendment would affect former relevant children—young people aged 18 and over. Those young people will no longer be dependent on their responsible authority for accommodation and maintenance, because those duties—as the hon. Lady is aware—cease when the young people turn 18. The assistance for that group of young people, therefore, will consist of help with employment, education, training or general matters. Such help will normally be agreed between the young person and the responsible authority and will be given for specific purposes.
Councils are under a duty to provide such assistance to the extent that someone's welfare or his educational and training needs require it. If someone is not co-operating with the council, the council will be entitled to consider that his welfare does not require that assistance. That is hardly, therefore, a blank cheque. A pathway plan, setting out such assistance, will be reviewed regularly and as frequently as necessary. Clearly, that is not a licence for former relevant children to stay in bed all day—that is what the hon. Lady seemed to suggest—while limitless funds flow into their bank accounts. That is not likely to happen and it is certainly not what we intend. There is therefore no need to make specific provision in the Bill for that eventuality.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 would affect councils' powers—not duties—to help care leavers under section 24 of the Children Act 1989. The amendments seem to reflect some confusion and I bring that to the hon. Lady's attention. Of course, it is true that section 24 can still apply to former relevant children, but the proposed new section 23C sets out councils' duties to that group. In essence, the proposed new section 23C translates councils' section 24 powers to assist into duties to former relevant children. Section 24 will, therefore, apply in practice to care leavers who do not qualify for the new arrangements because, for example, they do not meet the eligibility rules that we will set out. That being so, I am sure that it is obvious to the hon. Lady that such care leavers will not have pathway plans and that it would be wrong for any help that they receive under section 24 to be contingent on their conforming to the plans. If they did, it would be perverse and unjustifiable.
We spent some time on this matter in Committee. I hope that I have been able to set at least one or two of the issues straight. We want very much for the new arrangements to work in the context of a relationship based around rights and responsibilities. I hope that my remarks will, to some extent, reassure the hon. Lady about the issues that she has raised.

Mrs. Spelman: I assure the Minister that there is no turmoil among Conservative Members, and there was no confusion until he started speaking. Although I shall ask for clarification on one point, I was pleased to hear that he understands exactly what we were driving at, something about which there is absolutely no confusion. We wish to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities. He used exactly the same language in that respect, and there is a clear consensus on that point. I accept that he does not take a one-sided view of this issue.
I take on board as a comfort the Minister's point that a review every six months will, in practice, mean a rolling revision process. However, such a process will have cost implications. As we are unsure about whether resources will be made available to make it successful, I underline to the Minister the fact that local authorities will consider the increased burden presented by rolling revision as a practical matter of resources.
I seek clarification on something that the Minister said. He seemed to suggest that if a care leaver did not co-operate or comply, the council could be right to assume that his welfare did not require support. If I understand him correctly, his point will not give comfort to the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). However, I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that our amendment No. 2 deliberately did not refer to subsection (4)(c), because we are interested in adherence in relation to education and employment. We are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I am left with the distinct impression—unless I am very confused on the matter—that the Minister said that the council could assume that the care leaver's welfare no longer required support if he did not comply with the agreement established with the personal adviser in the plan. Will the Minister help me on that point?

Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly try to help the hon. Lady. I tried to make the position clear and she can examine my

remarks in Hansard. It is important that she understands that the issue will be addressed as part of the rights and responsibilities agenda that I have described. I do not want to be prescriptive about individual cases, and I am sure that she will understand that. However, the degree and extent of compliance with a pathway plan and a local authority's obligation to provide support for training and the other issues identified in the Bill are bound to be connected.

Mrs. Spelman: We may be reaching a degree of consensus on this point. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow, but the Minister has probably articulated the points that we were driving at in our amendments. My reading tomorrow will make the matter much clearer, but the Minister sought to finesse his reply. I think that I understand it correctly when I suggest that the balance of rights and responsibilities that we sought in our amendment is the same balance that he seeks to achieve. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS AGED 16 OR OVER

Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 25, leave out "registered" and insert "private".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14, 20, 19 and 21 to 23.

Mr. Hutton: I am rather sorry that I have to move the amendments. They are necessary only because the Care Standards Act 2000 received Royal Assent before this Bill and we had assumed that this Bill would reach the statute book first. I assure the House that the amendments are technical.
The Care Standards Act amended the definitions of residential care homes, nursing homes and registered children's homes to care homes, independent hospitals and private children's homes. I am sure that the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will remember the debate on that point—I will never be able to forget it. This Bill, in restating section 24 of the Children Act 1989, deployed in the proposed new sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c) the existing definitions of such homes because it was introduced ahead of the Care Standards Bill.
Amendments updating those references were made to the Children Act in the Committee considering the Care Standards Act. As I said at the time, those amendments were drafted on the reasonable assumption that the amendments to the Children Act made by the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would become law first. In the event and as we all know, that did not happen so the amendments refer to new sections of the Children Act that did not, in fact, exist at the time the Care Standards Act obtained Royal Assent. The consequence is that the amendments have no effect. We therefore need to amend this Bill to bring the references to such homes into line, and to remove the now incorrect amendments to the Care Standards Act.
I hope that I can assure the House that the amendments are simply technical: they have no new policy implications of any kind. They are necessary simply because the Care Standards Act received Royal Assent before this Bill.

Mr. Hammond: This is a complex series of amendments to achieve, as the Minister said, precisely nothing in policy terms. We are happy that they achieve their technical purpose and do it well.
I am moved to pass a comment because in the previous debate the Minister felt able to remark on the turmoil, as he saw it, among Conservative Members. What turmoil is going on among Labour Members that enables a Minister of the Crown to say, "We were assuming that the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would reach the statute book first"? Who are the "we" who made that assumption? The "we" have to be the Government. Presumably, the Government could determine which of those two measures reached the statute book first.
6.30 pm
It is a bit rich for the Minister to say that the Government drafted the Bill on the reasonable assumption that one Bill would reach the statute book before the other and that the Bill must now be amended otherwise it would not make sense because, by implication, someone else arranged that that would happen the other way around. If any turmoil is being revealed, it is that which lies at the heart of the Government's management of their overcrowded legislative programme.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 6, line 31, leave out from "any" to second "or" in line 32 and insert—
'care home or independent hospital'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 11, after "full-time" insert "further or".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18.

Mr. Hutton: We all know by now that the Bill is all about improving the life chances of young people who have been in care. Of course, education is the best way to do that—helping them into jobs, careers and a fulfilling and productive role in society. Skills and knowledge are now the commanding heights of the new economy. We want looked-after children to have exactly the same opportunities to receive a good education as anyone else. That is why the Bill is assiduous in creating duties to help with education and training even beyond the point at which young people leave care.
The new duties for qualifying care leavers aged 18 and over specifically include a duty on councils to assist with education and training to the end of the agreed course, even if that takes a young person past the age of 21. The Bill, as originally drafted, backed that up with a new duty to provide vacation accommodation for care leavers in higher education. That duty was introduced because we were aware of cases in which young people who had left care were unable to take up university places simply

because they could not find somewhere to live during vacations. That is why the duty applies to all care leavers, not just those to whom the rest of the Bill applies.
While the Bill has being making its passage through Parliament, we have been made aware of the fact that vacation accommodation can be an issue for some further education students as well. I am grateful to those who have drawn our attention to what might have been an omission in the Bill's drafting.
For the most part, students take further education courses near to home at their local school or college, usually studying from home. Those students do not usually have special accommodation needs during vacations, and these amendments do not affect them. However, some agricultural, horticultural and arts courses are run at residential colleges and those students are clearly in the same position as many university students during vacations in needing to find alternative accommodation. Therefore, following the representations made in Committee and elsewhere, we have decided explicitly to extend the duty to provide vacation accommodation to care leavers who require it to those further education students as well.
Under amendment No. 18, the Secretary of State will be allowed to make regulations defining further education for the purposes of the Bill and the intention is to define it in terms of the sort of residential FE courses that I have described.
Amendment No. 16 will add the qualifier
because his term time accommodation is not available to him
to establish the reason why a student would need to call on that duty. Most students have the option to return to their family home during vacations—an option that is not available to care leavers. These amendments are intended to create a more level playing field by ensuring that care leavers are not left with nowhere to go during vacations.

Mrs. Spelman: I have hung on the Minister's every word because this parliamentary occasion is a first for me. I have seen the Bill through Committee to Report and, as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have articulated the need to amend the Bill to include further education. Therefore, I was interested to find out how the Government would handle the fact that the Opposition had previously drawn their attention to the need for such an amendment. In the human transactional way of things, I suppose that what the Minister has said is the closest that we will get to an apology.
The Opposition first brought the proposal to the Government's attention in Committee, where they rebuffed it but, on reflection, they have now accepted it. That is an important point for the Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that an Opposition make great play of an amendment being accepted in Committee. We go to the country and say, "Hooray, draft legislation has been changed because we brought something to the Government's attention."
Therefore, it is disappointing that the official Opposition have not been given adequate credit. The Minister spoke of those who had made him aware of the matter, but the word "those" refers to me. Others may have been involved, but the fact is that I and my hon. Friends tabled the amendment in Committee, and we should have liked to have heard about that. Obviously, the most important point is that the change has been made.
I do not wish to embarrass the Minister too much but, in Committee, he said that further education accommodation was
not a significant problem…New express duties are not required.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 110–11.]
He also said that any adjustment would be made "through additional guidance."
I rejoice at a parliamentary occasion on which, for once, we have achieved a change in the Bill. That is important because much of the Bill represents an empty box and the Opposition have had to depend on the guidance that is produced to understand its implications. We welcome the amendment because the label on the box will be clear to everyone.
For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present at the initial debate in Committee on the need to include further education, let me emphasise that only 1.1 per cent. of care leavers enter higher education and, therefore, the requirement on the local authority or the corporate parent—the term that we chose to use—to provide vacation accommodation will be taken up by a small percentage of care leavers. Of course we should like more care leavers to enter higher education, but the reality is that a far larger percentage enter further education. The Minister said in Committee that 40 per cent. do so.
The amendment represents an important change in the Bill, which is why we welcome it strongly. As I said, this is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had such an experience, but I should have preferred credit to be given in the right quarter. I have no doubt that other organisations brought to the Minister's attention the need to include higher and further education, but the official Opposition tabled the original amendment, which was rebuffed in Committee. It would have been nice if the apology had been fulsome, but I welcome the change. It was certainly part of our policy ambition that further education should be included and there is no doubt that a much higher percentage of care leavers will benefit from the provision than would have been the case if the Bill had not been amended.

Dr. Brand: I certainly welcome the amendment and share the delight of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in having had some output from the many hours that we spent in Committee. It is important to make residential provision available not only for particular courses but for people living in isolated or rural areas. I gave specific examples in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Therefore, I totally support the Government's change of mind. I hope that it will achieve a tremendous amount; it is probably the one proposal that will make a real difference to the life chances of young people leaving care and help to encourage them into the further education that they need.

Mr. Shaw: I very much welcome the amendments. It will be quite a challenge for local authorities to implement plans before a course starts for a young person who will need accommodation during a vacation. In order to complete a course, one certainly needs to know where one will live during the summer. We do not want a young person to approach the end of term saying, "I've nowhere to live; I'd better ring the council." With the best will in the world, no council would say, "There's the accommodation; we've sorted it out immediately."
The remarks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) were not particularly fair to my hon. Friend the Minister. On a number of occasions during proceedings in the Committees considering this Bill and the Care Standards Bill—the hon. Lady and I served on both Committees—my hon. Friend conceded points, sought further information to reassure her and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and changed the Bill as a result of amendments that they had tabled. For example, during proceedings on the Care Standards Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a point about including residential schools, and my hon. Friend immediately responded and made the necessary changes.
We ought to recognise that, as has been said, further rather than higher education is the principal route at the moment for most of the young people about whom we are talking. We hope that, as a result of the Bill, more such young people will enter higher education.
In July, my hon. Friend the Minister met a young man, Mark Kane, who was a care leaver, in further education and a member of the board of management for Kent county council's 16-plus service. He was a strong and passionate voice for care leavers throughout the county. He had not always received the best deal in services but, rather than be angry for himself, he chose to channel his energy into something positive to bring about changes for young people. He was very much a positive role model for many young people leaving the care system in Kent.
Sadly, on 26 September, Mark Kane took his own life, leaving his friends, social workers and all those who were associated with him devastated. He was a young man who had great hopes and someone to whom we thought we could point as a success of the care system. Despite his confident persona, that articulate young man clearly had difficulties and problems, which resulted in such a tragedy. He would very much have welcomed the amendment, as he would the whole Bill. I had a couple of opportunities to discuss the Bill with him. I hope that its powers will serve as a campaign in Kent in his memory. The amendments are very welcome.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall be more generous in my thanks to the Minister than the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was correct in saying that she and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tabled in Committee the original amendment, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and I were delighted to support. The Government have listened and tabled the necessary amendments, and that is welcome. They do not have an excellent reputation for listening to rural voices at the moment, but on this point they have done so.
The point that I made in Committee was not just about vocational courses, such as those offered in Aberystwyth, where the foremost agricultural college happens to be located, which I know many students travel some distance to attend. If rural-based students are to access the best courses, including vocational ones, they will need to travel. Some of my constituents travel 60 miles to Carmarthen, for example, in order to undertake the right vocational course, which means that they must stay there during the week. There are obligations to provide vacational accommodation for such people, and I am pleased that the Government have listened on that point.
In Committee, the Minister had the unenviable task of trying to defend shades of difference between further and higher education, when his Government are in fact increasingly blurring the distinctions. Certainly in Wales, with the abolition of training and enterprise councils and the establishment of a new sixth-form system of education over the next few years, we shall see the difference between further and higher education alter greatly.
Care leavers' access to such education will change too. I would imagine that one aim of the Bill is to encourage more care leavers to access both further and higher education. We must acknowledge further education as the route, on occasions, into higher education, particularly for care leavers who may have fewer GCSEs, and so forth, to start with.
The amendment is essential, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. The Bill will be seen, certainly in rural areas, as stronger as a result, ensuring that there are not more examples of rural social exclusion about which, on occasion, we must argue.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken on the amendment and for the support that they have expressed for the changes that we are making. Obviously, I am less than pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but I dare say that I will get over that. I say to her and her hon. Friends that this is probably not one of those occasions on which we should worry so much about who should take credit for the changes. The important issue is that the Bill will be amended.
I acknowledged the comments and arguments put to us. We have listened to those observations, and changed the Bill accordingly. That is the right, responsible way for Governments to act. We have tried to discharge our responsibilities seriously and fairly, and I hope that, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, the Bill has been strengthened as a result.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 8, line 12, after "vacation" insert—
'because his term-time accommodation is not available to him then'.
No. 17, in page 8, line 14, leave out "then" and insert "during the vacation".
No. 18, in page 8, line 18, leave out ""full-time higher education"" and insert—
'full-time", "further education", "higher education'".
No. 20, in page 8, line 31, leave out "registered" and insert "private".
No. 19, in page 8, line 35, leave out from "any" to "or" in line 36 and insert—
'care home or independent hospital'.
No. 21, in page 8, line 44, at end insert—
'() If subsection (1) comes into force before the commencement of section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000—

(a) until that commencement, the references to a "private children's home" in sections 24(2)(c) and 24C(2)(a) of the 1989 Act as substituted by subsection (1) are to be read as references to a registered children's home; and

(b) until that commencement, the references to any "care home or independent hospital" in sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c), as so substituted, are to be read as references to any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,

and paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 4 to the Care Standards Act 2000 (which amends section 24 of the 1989 Act) is repealed.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

Clause 5

REPRESENTATIONS

Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) Every local authority shall make arrangements to ensure that any person qualified under subsection (1) to make representations has access to appropriate independent advice and support to assist him in making such representations.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 10, after "subsection (1)", insert—
'and in making arrangements under subsection (1A)'.

Mrs. Spelman: Those who observe these debates will be pleased to hear that the consensual tone will return—certainly on the question of independent advice, which we debated in Committee.
Even in Committee, there was quite a lot of understanding of the importance of independence. We certainly believe that looked-after children should have access to independent advice and support if they feel that they must make a complaint about their personal adviser and the services that they are receiving. That was our purpose in tabling amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
I am sure that all hon. Members are all too aware of the poor experience of children in care in trying to obtain access to independent advice. Many children's charities and those who work with children are strong advocates of independent advice being made available to children. We maintain that view; it was our motivation behind tabling the amendments.
Save The Children Fund is even anxious about the over-dependency that might be created in the relationship between the care leaver and the personal adviser. It is concerned about whether the balance in that relationship is right without the existence of independent advisers to whom the care leaver may turn, should that relationship break down. Its uneasiness is easy for us to understand.
In Committee, there was quite a deal of debate about how the complaints procedure—should there be need to make one—would be developed. If, in the course of replying to my speech, the Minister explained a little more about the Government's thinking on that point, we would be greatly illuminated. It remains rather unclear in the Bill.
We have reached an important point in the outworking of a Bill designed to protect children and provide a satisfactory complaints procedure. There has been consultation about the form that the complaints procedure should take, but that has not left me reassured that the complaints procedure will be just and speedy enough to satisfy an unhappy care leaver that the complaint is being dealt with fairly and independently.
The personal adviser is the human face of the corporate parent, as I described it, and therefore represents the corporate parent—the state or the establishment—to the care leaver. It would not be unnatural for the care leaver to feel anxious and even to lodge a complaint about the adviser, who represents the corporate parent with whom the care leaver felt that he or she had fallen out.
Without an independent adviser to whom to turn in such a situation, and unable to see a fair and speedy way to have the complaint investigated, the care leaver might be tempted to swallow the complaint, go to ground, drop out of the agreed pathway plan or become estranged from the local authority, whose duty it would be to keep in touch. Whether or not the complaint was legitimate, the lack of an independent adviser would place the care leaver in a weaker position. For that reason, we have returned to the need for independent advisers.
The charity Action on Aftercare Consortium stresses the importance of developing a complaints procedure that is not unwieldy, bureaucratic or long. As I understand it from the consultation process, the dispute is not about whether independent advisers or advocates should be available to children who have complaints, but about the stage at which independent advisers would be made available. In the consultation document, there are choices to be made about whether that should take place at the first, second or third stage. We should put ourselves in the position of care leavers, for whom the process is likely to seem extremely intimidating; they may have to go through it on their own, possibly opposite a panel that will decide whether the complaint should be upheld. The process may reach the third stage before an independent adviser suddenly pops up out of the woodwork to provide help.
The term "independent adviser" is carefully chosen. The difference between advocacy and independent advice is that an advocate speaks for the complainant, but an independent adviser may be able to bring some objectivity to the process, and that would be extremely helpful.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how far the review of the complaints procedure has progressed and the role in that complaints procedure for independent advice, as envisaged in legislation to protect children. We consider it important to recognise in the Bill the need for independent advice, so that a just and speedy way can be found to address a complaint felt keenly by a care leaver, which otherwise may result in his or her being disillusioned with what is made available to help care leavers with their needs. Such disillusion would result in the failures of the system that have unfortunately all too often characterised the experience of care leavers.

Mr. Hutton: Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment and the way in which she has presented her arguments. There is probably not a great deal of difference between us on the issue. The debate is about whether we want such a provision written into the Bill, or whether we should develop the arguments about advocacy through other means.
In the Standing Committee, I drew the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we are consulting on the complaints procedure for the entire Children Act 1989. That consultation has included specific questions about the provision of advocacy services. I do not want to second guess the outcome of the consultation, as we want

to give careful thought to the comments made about those services. However, I make it clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that there is no question of a lack of Government support for advocacy services in this area. She helpfully allowed the Standing Committee to have a full debate on the matter when we discussed the Bill in the summer.
We have taken significant steps to encourage and support the use of advocacy services. The hon. Lady knows, because she and I have debated the issue extensively, that we have given a firm commitment to making it clear in the statutory guidance that will be issued in support of the Bill that young people should be given access to the services of an advocate if they require it when making a complaint under the complaints procedure.
Once the consultation on the complaints and representation systems is complete, we shall be able to use the powers built into the Bill to describe its complaints procedures, so we can take forward the argument about advocacy at that stage. We do not need new powers in the Bill to do that, as the amendment suggests.
I accept many of the arguments that the hon. Lady put to the House this afternoon about the importance of advocacy services in the arrangements. I do not want her or her hon. Friends to think that we are lukewarm about the importance of advocacy services; we are not. We want to make sure that the revised complaints procedure is capable of addressing as promptly and expeditiously as possible some of the urgent complaints and problems that may arise in future around the operation of the legislation.
There is no point in introducing a complaints procedure that cannot address properly, fairly and squarely the concerns of young people leaving care. We want to make sure that the complaints procedure does that much more effectively in future than it has been able to do in the past. Advocacy services will clearly have an important role to play in that. We have made that position clear and, in the light of the reassurances that I have tried to extend to her, I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will not consider it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.

Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that those listening will be encouraged to hear the return to a consensual tone. I am encouraged to hear that the Government are not lukewarm, as the Minister said, about advocacy.
I want to impress on the Minister a practical point that arises from what he said. Perhaps he will take this as an informal contribution to the consultation, although the official Opposition do not usually participate in Government consultation processes. The phraseology that he used suggests that when the relationship breaks down between the personal adviser and the care leaver, and the care leaver wants to make a complaint, he or she will not have adequate protection, unless the complaints procedure under review is altered or the guidance is changed.
The Minister said that care leavers will have access to advocacy services if they require it, but who decides whether they require it? If it is the personal adviser who decides whether the care leaver requires independent advocacy services, there will be insufficient arm's length


or independence for the care leaver to have confidence in the system. All the charities that are concerned about independent advocacy may be disquieted by that as well.

Mr. Hutton: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and allowing me to correct a misapprehension. I am trying to preserve our position as we have not yet made a decision on the new arrangements, but whatever they are, we want them to command the confidence of young people. We shall make sure that that is the case. The important principle is that the young person feels that the system serves his or her interests, and we shall ensure that it does.

7 pm

Mrs. Spelman: That is a bit better, and I am encouraged. I am glad that I gave way, as the Minister has shown clearly that he has understood that it is extremely important that the care leaver feels that he or she has unfettered access to independent advice when the chips are down and a complaint is made. That would not be the case if the person against whom the complaint was lodged were in a position to make a decision about whether independent advocacy services should be rolled in. It is certainly satisfying to hear the Minister's clarification of that point. I accept that he wants care leavers and all those involved in this process to have confidence in the system. His reply makes it a lot easier for me to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

EXCLUSION FROM BENEFITS

Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
'is

(a) disabled within the meaning of section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, or
(b) a mother of a child under four years of age.

(3A) Where the Secretary of State provides by regulations that this section does not apply to a person by virtue of subsection (3)(b) he may provide by regulations such conditions as he shall determine to be in the best interest of that person and her child and if that person fails to comply with those conditions she shall cease to be a person to whom this section does not apply.'.

Mr. Hammond: May I start by drawing the House's attention to a typographical error in amendment No. 9, which refers to section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act? In fact, that reference should be to section 121(2) of the Care Standards Act. I am advised by the appropriate authorities that in a case where a typographical error is made but the meaning is clear, there is no reason why we should not debate the substance of the issue. If necessary, there will be opportunities later to correct what is written in the amendment. Responsibility for the error is entirely mine, so I apologise, I apologise, I apologise.

Mr. Hutton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about

his amendment, will you confirm that although he acknowledged that there is a typographical error on the Order Paper, we shall be debating the wording that the hon. Gentleman proposed, not that which he originally intended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said about his amendment. Technically, however, we must debate what is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Clearly, the Bill will have to go back to the other place as Government amendments have already been accepted, so there will be an opportunity to correct the technical error in the Order Paper later. I hope that the Government will not seek to shelter behind a technicality in a debate about an important issue of principle. The House should discuss the important issues in the amendment, not the technicality of what is obviously a typographical error.
Clause 6 removes the right to means-tested benefits, consisting of income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance, for 16 and 17-year-old care leavers, bringing their position broadly into line with that of other 16 and 17-year-olds. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's objective of providing a concept of support that is broader than entitlement to cash benefits. Of course, we accept that that support may, and almost invariably will, include a cash element. However, that should not be an entitlement, as it should be negotiated between the young person and the young person's adviser, who will seek to put together a package of measures that provide proper support, in the broadest sense, for that young person.
We accept a point that the Minister made many times in presenting arguments for the Bill, and agree that the rigidities of the social security system and the sheer difficulty of navigating a way through it mean that it is often not the ideal way of dealing with the needs of particularly vulnerable young people. Care leavers clearly fall into that category. Under the present system of support available to non-care leavers, there is an entitlement to benefits for disabled young people and young people who are lone parents when they live at home with their families, meaning their own parents.
In introducing clause 6, the Minister's intention is to give the Secretary of State powers to exempt groups from removal of eligibility for benefit so that they can be brought more into line with the treatment of other young people who are not care leavers. My amendment and our debate are triggered by a separate issue that the Minister raised in Committee, when he indicated that his intention was to go significantly further than matching the support that other young people receive. He said:
I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions, as it is right and proper that they should continue to be entitled to benefits. If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 137.]
The Minister therefore indicated that exemption from the provisions of clause 6, which removes the entitlement to means-tested social security benefits, should be extended to 15-year-old girls who are pregnant when they leave care. That does not bring the position of care leavers


into line with that of non-care leavers; it sends a confusing signal to some vulnerable 15-year-olds. The Minister's own consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", reports that some studies show that between 25 and 30 per cent. of 16-year-old girls leaving care are already mothers. I have not been able to find a figure—it may not be available—that tells us how many of those girls are pregnant at the time of leaving care.
Whether we like it or not, some young people will see the loss of entitlement benefits as a negative thing. There is a consensus in the Chamber, as there certainly was in Committee, that the package of support, consisting of cash benefits and non-cash support, available under the Bill will, on an objective basis and from an adult perspective, be superior to that which might otherwise be available under the means-tested social security system. The Minister, myself and other hon. Members who have taken part in our debates all agree on that.
Although the Minister disagreed with me strongly in Committee, the removal of an entitlement to cash benefit, which will be replaced by a discretionary benefit payable by the local authority that will be negotiated with the young person, will not be seen by all young people as positive. Indeed, if the Minister considers which young people might feel that removal of entitlement benefits and replacement with discretionary support packages was not beneficial or did not suit their particular desires at that stage of their life, he will find that the most vulnerable young people are the most likely to see merit in trying to hang on to cash benefits.
We accept that care leavers who are disabled or lone parents who live at home with their own families constitute a special case. Before the summer recess, I tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to limit the Secretary of State's powers to those groups and exclude the group which, as the Minister revealed in Committee, the Government intend to include. I spent some time in the summer consulting various outside bodies about the issue. The need to discuss a wider issue became clear to me and I therefore tabled amendment No. 24.
If the system of support for which the Bill provides is so superior to the means-tested, social security support, which it will withdraw, why would we want to give the Secretary of State the power to exempt from that arrangement those who are perhaps most vulnerable—those who are disabled or lone parents? Many organisations that deal with disadvantaged young people have made the point that the benefits system does not tackle the complex needs of vulnerable young people well, even if they can find their way through it.
It may be better to provide, if appropriate, a cash-based support system, but within the structure that the Bill establishes. That would obviate the need to create exemptions from clause 6. The underlying ethos of the Bill is that those for whom it provides should be better off than they would be outside the system for which it provides, despite the change in the level of entitlement to cash benefits.
Amendment No. 24 would achieve the objective of dealing with the cash needs of vulnerable groups of care leavers within the architecture of the Bill. It recognises the need for special support for those groups, and that a system that is more cash based may be appropriate for some. However, that system can be provided within the scope of the Bill. I hope that the Government can accept the logic of that argument and support the amendment.
We would find it unacceptable for the Secretary of State to have discretionary powers to exempt groups from clause 6 without specifying them in the Bill. The Minister, who is in charge of the measure, told us clearly in Committee that he believes that those powers could apply to young care leavers who are pregnant. We would resist that. It would have a more pernicious effect than exempting care leavers who are disabled or lone parents. It would send a negative and undesirable signal to vulnerable 15-year-old girls and would contrast starkly with the Department's campaign to discourage sexual activity among the under-16s.
Positive, continuing contact between the care leaver and the young person's adviser would be less likely if young people did not perceive that they received their stream of benefit payments—in kind or in cash—through that medium, but were able to gain access to them through the entitlement systems of the social security structure. The Government's consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", made no reference to including pregnant care leavers in the category that should be exempted from the withdrawal of cash benefits. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree this evening that there is no need for powers to exempt categories from clause 6. If he is unable to go that far, I hope that he will agree that the Secretary of State should not have the power to exempt pregnant 15-year-old girls simply because they get pregnant while in care.
From every discussion that I have held with the Minister, I believe that he must agree that that would send the wrong signal to a vulnerable and exposed group of young people. I am sure that he would join us in wanting to do everything possible to discourage inappropriate behaviour among 15-year-olds, whether in care or not. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill, when read in conjunction with his comments in Committee, clearly gives a negative signal to 15-year-olds. We must tackle that tonight, notwithstanding the typographical error in drafting amendment No. 9.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the substantive points and acknowledge that there is a simple and adequate opportunity to make the typographical correction when the Bill goes to another place. I am confident that, if amendment No. 9 is accepted, my noble Friends will co-operate in ensuring that the typographical error is corrected.

Mr. Hutton: It appears that the origins of the amendment are some comments that I made in Committee about pregnant girls leaving care. I shall deal with that point later, and I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) the assurance that he seeks. If he spent the entire summer expressing anxieties about my words in Committee, I am surprised that he did not raise them with me then. I could have given him the assurance, and we might have spared ourselves some time and effort today.
I shall not deal with the amendments on the basis of their technical drafting. We know what life can sometimes be like in opposition. We all make mistakes with amendments; I have certainly made such mistakes. I want to do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving him a full and proper response to his arguments.
Notwithstanding the comments I have just made, the amendment is horribly defective. We must be clear about that. The attempt to align the definition of disability in the


Care Standards Act 2000 with clause 6 of the Bill is a complete failure, because the section that the hon. Gentleman identifies as defining disability does not do that. As defects go, that is rather substantial. However, let us draw a line under that and try to deal with the arguments that he raised.
Amendment No. 9 would replace the general power to make regulations about the groups to be excepted from the new benefits regime with a far more restrictive power, which would identify only two categories of care leavers in the Bill. That approach runs counter to the way in which legislation on social security entitlements has often been drafted in the past. Primary legislation sets out the framework and establishes the principles, and secondary legislation tends to fill in the details. That is important if the law is not to become a blunt instrument. I am not in favour of that, and I am sure that hon. Gentleman is not.
We anticipate that the principles that the measure establishes will stand the test of time. However, matters of detail may change over time. We may find that we need to make minor adjustments in the light of experience. We therefore want to allow for some flexibility in the Bill so that implementation of the new provisions can take advantage of growing experience. That means putting the detail into secondary legislation so that, if necessary, it can be changed in future.
We have been clear throughout that we plan to make exceptions for disabled young people and for lone parents who will continue to be eligible for benefits. The benefit system recognises that they have special needs and permits them to claim benefit when they are living at home with their families. We are trying to treat these young people consistently. The new arrangements will continue to recognise these special needs. I think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he recognised these special needs and that the young people concerned should continue to be eligible for these benefits.
I want to correct what the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks in Committee. He was anxious about the matter. It seems that he gained the impression that we intend to exempt pregnant care leavers from the new funding arrangements in the Bill. We do not. I apologise to him and to others if that was their impression. It is technically possible for a pregnant care leaver to be eligible for income support and other benefits on the ground of a disabling condition to which, perhaps, the pregnancy itself might give rise. However, we have made it clear that disability and the fact that a young care leaver is a single parent—a lone parent—will be the conditions that we intend to exercise in terms of coming to a view about who should continue to be eligible for benefit entitlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear now about our intentions.
For disability, we plan to use the existing Department of Social Security eligibility criteria for claiming income support for the sick and disabled. As we are thinking about who is not to be excluded from benefit, it would be sensible to be consistent with the rules that say who can claim benefit. The amendment, which attempts to provide a new definition of disability, could be confusing. That would not be a helpful way in which to proceed. Definitions should be consistent. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who was a DSS

Minister in the previous Administration, might be advancing a similar argument if he were standing in my shoes.
On lone parents, given that we are talking in this context about young people aged 16 and 17, it seems completely otiose to prescribe the age of a child in order for the parent to be able to claim benefits. That is what the amendment would do. Having decided that lone parents are a special group who should have access to benefits, it does not seem right to impose any additional conditions. If they claim income support or jobseeker's allowance, they will be expected to meet the normal conditions of entitlement for the benefit concerned. We see no need, therefore, for extra conditions for this particular group of lone parents.
Interestingly, amendment No. 9 talks in terms of mothers; the Government talk about lone parents. The point of principle on which we consulted in "Me, Survive, Out There?" was that we are setting up new arrangements that mirror as closely as possible the sort of support which young people would normally be able to expect from their parents. In the case of lone parents, their special needs are recognised in that they are able to claim benefit even if they are living at home, and that right is what we are reproducing for lone parents who have been looked after.
It would be a retrograde step to limit the provision to mothers. In reality, it is mothers who will be the ones looking after children—I accept that overwhelmingly that will be the case—however, it is possible that a lone father might be bringing up a child alone.

Mr. Hammond: In care.

Mr. Hutton: Yes, possibly in care. We do not want this legislation to discriminate against any such person. The amendment would allow a mother to continue to claim benefit if she had a child under four years of age, but not a father bringing up a child on his own. I accept that those cases might be exceptionally few and far between, but in fairness to those people we could not accept the amendment. There is no logic or fairness to it.
Under the terms of the Bill, these lone parents will have a young person's adviser, a pathway plan and all the support that will go with that. They will have a needs assessment like any other eligible or relevant child, and their responsible authority will agree with them a package of support, just as it does for anyone else. That package will be devised to meet the young person's individual needs and it will take account of the benefits to which he or she is entitled, just as someone else's pathway plan would take account of any income or resource that was available to them. It would not be helpful to single out this group to impose special conditions on them.
I hope that, at least in one respect, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge might be reassured by my response. It is clear that we have a different view. He prefers a particular way of dealing with the matter in the Bill, and we have tried to provide an alternative approach, which would preserve the issues of principle that he and I share and have in common. I suspect that I might be wrong, but I hope that he will not feel it necessary to push the amendment to a vote. If he insists on voting, I shall strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the substance of the amendment and not


seeking to shelter behind a technicality. He has always shown great courage in taking that line in Committee and in the House in dealing with the issues that need to be discussed. However, I am disappointed with his condemnation of our use of the definition of disability that is contained within the Care Standards Act 2000. It seems to be an eminently appropriate definition. It reads that
For the purposes of this Act…a person is disabled if…his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired;…he has a mental disorder; or…he is physically substantially disabled by any illness, any impairment present since birth or otherwise.
That seems to be quite a good definition of disability.

Mr. Hutton: It is a very good definition because I tabled the relevant amendment. However, it is not the definition that the DSS uses in determining eligibility for benefits on the basis of disability. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts the need for some consistency in those cases.

Mr. Hammond: Perhaps that is an argument for joined-up government from the Minister.
The Minister wondered aloud why I had not contacted him during the summer to discuss the confusion that may have arisen in my mind about what he said in Committee. There was no confusion. I do not believe that there was any confusion in the minds of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. The position seems pretty clear. The Minister said:
I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions.
He added:
If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.
There is not much scope for misinterpretation there.
In response to an intervention from me, he said:
Many young girls leaving care are pregnant…I am told that as many as one in four girls who leave care are pregnant.
A column later, I said to the Minister:
Has he given any thought to what message is sent to young girls aged 15 in local authority care, their co-residents in the children's home and others who are pregnant will anticipate receiving benefit because of the exemption, but those who are not pregnant will not expect benefits?
The Minister said:
I am not convinced that young women will get pregnant because they might then be entitled to income support.
A column later, I said:
That sends some strange messages. I do not suggest that 15-year-old girls in care will automatically think that they have one year left in which to become pregnant, but there will be serious consequences to anything that seems to people's peers, however misguidedly, to reward them for a type of behaviour that we would not seek to encourage.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000: c. 137–39.]
Nowhere in those exchanges over three columns of Hansard did the Minister seek to retract the statement that he made in column 137 that the exemption should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.
The Minister has said that he wants to allow in the Bill for some flexibility in how the Secretary of State seeks to use his power to make exemptions. Having heard what the Minister said in Committee—that he would intend to

apply the exemption also to all young care leavers who are pregnant—we specifically do not want to leave the Secretary of State any flexibility in interpreting how he uses the exemption.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 24.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am satisfied that the debate has covered both amendments in the group.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
'is

(a) disabled within the meaning of section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, or
(b) a mother of a child under four years of age.


(3A) Where the Secretary of State provides by regulations that this section does not apply to a person by virtue of subsection (3)(b) he may provide by regulations such conditions as he shall determine to be in the best interest of that person and her child and if that person fails to comply with those conditions she shall cease to be a person to whom this section does not apply.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 312.

Division No. 316]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Garnier, Edward


Amess, David
Gibb, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Green, Damian


Bercow, John
Greenway, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hayes, John


Brady, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Cash, William
Johnson Smith,


Chope, Christopher
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Collins, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Loughton, Tim


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Faber, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Mates, Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gale, Roger
May, Mrs Theresa






Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Randall, John
Wardle, Charles


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Laurence
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Whittingdale, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Willetts, David


Ruffley, David
Wilshire, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Syms, Robert
Mr. James Gray.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clwyd, Ann


Austin, John
Coaker, Vernon


Baker, Norman
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Begg, Miss Anne
Corston, Jean


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brinton, Mrs Helen



Brinton, Mrs Helen



Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Ennis, Jeff


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Fearn, Ronnie


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank





Fisher, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flynn, Paul
Lock, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foulkes, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gidley, Sandra
McFall, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Harvey, Nick
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Mitchell, Austin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mudie, George


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Neill, Martin



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keetch, Paul
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Ms Dona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kirkwood, Archy
Rammell, Bill


Lammy, David
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry






Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ruane, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sanders, Adrian
Tipping, Paddy


Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tyler, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Webb, Steve


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wicks, Malcolm



Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wills, Michael


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winnick, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Woodward, Shaun


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Noes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Mike Hall and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
At present, the Bill applies only to England and Wales—with the exception of clause 6, which, because social security is a reserved matter, applies to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Government clearly expect the Scottish Parliament to produce legislation similar to that in the Bill. That is an arrogance in itself. In Committee, when we discussed issues relating to this matter, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) accused me of displaying—in an amendment that I had tabled—a lack of faith in the devolution settlement. He confidently assured me that the Scottish Parliament would ensure that legislation mirroring the Bill was introduced. I understand from my colleagues in Scotland, however, that no progress has been made, and that consultation is still going on.
As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is clear that in the Scottish Parliament there is nothing like the consensus in favour of the legislation that exists across the parties in England. Perhaps in a moment the Minister will be able to give us his latest anticipated timetable for getting similar legislation through the Scottish Parliament.
As drafted, clause 6 would be applied in Scotland before legislation equivalent to the rest of the Bill had been passed by the Scottish Parliament. That would mean children leaving care in Scotland being left with no means of support, because clause 6 would withdraw their

entitlement to means-tested social security benefits before legislation had entitled them to benefits from local authorities on a model parallel to that established in England and Wales. We all agree that that would be unacceptable.
The Government's solution is not to wait until they can get their act together and ensure that appropriate legislation exists throughout the United Kingdom, but to give themselves a power to prescribe, by order, certain groups that are to be exempt. In our last debate we discussed the exemption of certain groups, such as lone parents and people who are disabled. Clause 6(7), however, specifically enables the Government to exempt groups by providing powers to make different regulations in different areas of the United Kingdom. In other words, it enables the Government to exclude people living in Scotland from the provisions of the clause.
Although social security is a reserved matter—in the devolution settlement, it was considered appropriate that social security matters throughout the United Kingdom should be dealt with by this Parliament—the Government's proposal is to block exempt Scotland from the effect of clause 6. Social security was kept as a reserved matter because it was obvious to those drafting the Scotland Bill that, if social security regimes differed in different parts of the country, it could lead to unfortunate examples of people migrating to find the benefits that were most advantageous to them. It was felt that the appropriate solution was to have a uniform system of benefits throughout the UK.
The fact that the Government have had to seek a regulation-making power to allow them to impose Scotland's exemption from clause 6 highlights a problem in the devolution settlement. The problem arises when legislation comes forward where delegated and reserved areas of policy making interact in a way that will leave one area stranded high and dry if the devolved Parliament does not co-operate with the Government in Westminster to ensure that appropriate legislation is in place in time.
The Government's proposal is to give themselves, through subsection (7), powers to make regulations that make different provisions for different areas and to use the subsection—they have freely admitted that it is their intention—to exclude Scotland. Means-tested cash benefits as an entitlement would continue to be payable in Scotland, although they would not be payable in England.
We have a clear and perhaps genuine disagreement across the House on the likely effects of that. There are those—they spoke both on Second Reading and in Committee—who believe that the entitlement to means-tested cash benefits is not likely to be important to people leaving care, and that they will see the common sense that we all agree on: the package of support on offer from local authorities is likely to be, taken in the round, superior to the value of the cash benefits that are on offer under the social security system. However, common sense tells me that some people at least who are faced with the prospect of leaving care at 16 and who have been expecting to be entitled to receive means-tested cash benefits will not see that arrangement—which requires them to keep in contact with their local authority, to negotiate with it about what they need for their support, how they are going to use and to spend it, what part of it will be cash and what part will be in kind—as a benefit to them.
As I said in the previous debate, common sense tells me that it will be the most vulnerable, the most at risk, who are likely to resist most the move from a cash


entitlement benefit to a package of support provided by the local authority. The cash entitlement system gives no-questions-asked cash, albeit perhaps not particularly generous sums, rather than the alternative of accessing support on an agreed basis with an agreed package through the young person's adviser.
I predict that there will be a steady trickle, if not a flood, of young people from England seeking to claim cash benefits in Scotland—perhaps, for example, when there has been some conflict or disagreement between the young person in question and the young person's adviser or the local authority. The Bill's intention is clear—that no cash alternative will be available to care leavers in England and Wales—but the practical effect of creating an exemption for Scotland will be that there is an alternative, always tantalisingly available, to the care leaver in England. That is to go north, to obtain an address in Scotland and then seek access to means-tested social security benefits in Scotland. That seems to be undesirable.
One of the Bill's main purposes has been, rightly, to arrest the drift of children leaving care from areas where they have been brought up and cared for, to London and other big cities—where they are much more vulnerable to people and things that prey on them—and to keep them in contact with their local authorities. We support that objective. It seems to be madness to put in place a mechanism that will offer them an opportunity to access means-tested benefits precisely by moving away from the area where they have been brought up and away from the influence of their local authorities. It seems that that has been done simply to try to paper over the cracks in the devolution settlement, which the Bill has exposed by combining areas that are delegated and areas that are reserved.
The Government cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Shaw: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to agencies that had various concerns about aspects of the Bill. That was one of the reasons why he was tabling amendments. I wonder, in relation to amendment No. 25, whether he has been in contact with any child care agency that feels that there will be a flood from Runnymede to Roxburgh to find those benefits. That is for the birds, as I said in Committee.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's views on the matter are well known to me. I would be more interested in him seeking to deal with the point of principle. It may be a trickle, not a flood. I said that it may be a trickle rather than a flood, but I wonder if it sends the right message to young people leaving care that the Government think that it is right that they should not have access to means-tested cash benefits.
The Government have put in place a system of probably more generous support—we do not know the details yet—but that means that young people leaving care have to keep in contact with their young persons adviser; essentially, they have to negotiate that package with the adviser. The Government argue—I tend to support them in the argument—that that is a positive thing. That will ensure that the young person is better supported and better able to make the transition from being a young person in care to being an adult finding his own way in society, but it is perverse then to create that one loophole.
In Committee, the Minister said that he anticipated a short transition; in other words, he anticipated the period between the introduction of the legislation in England and the passing of similar legislation in Scotland to be short, but, at the same time, he rejected an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to give a certificate whereby legislation having substantially the same effect was in place in Scotland before legislation was brought into effect in England, so requiring the Secretary of State to wait until the uniform regime could be applied throughout the UK. It was clearly the intention of the drafters of the Scotland Bill, in reserving social security to this Parliament, to avoid a situation—precisely the one that the Minister proposes to create—where the social security regimes on offer were different in different parts of the UK, creating unnecessary tensions.
The Minister told us that it would be only a short transition period. Perhaps, then, he can tell us precisely when he expects the legislation in Scotland to be passed, how he expects that legislation to be passed, given the different views that prevail in the Scottish Parliament, and why he did not accept a proposal that required legislation to be in place in both countries before the Bill came into effect.
8 pm
The Government should wait until they can treat all the people of the United Kingdom similarly on a reserved matter such as social security. Anything less undermines one of the important principles that was established when certain types of legislation were reserved for this Parliament.

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) started his remarks by expressing concerns about clause 6(7). I assure him that subsection (7) uses a standard form of words for social security legislation, and that its inclusion in the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to react flexibly to future developments. It also allows, for example, the Department of Social Security to pilot new benefit schemes. Therefore, there is nothing alien or fundamentally unsatisfactory about the clause. It is also certainly not in the Bill to exclude Scotland en bloc, as the hon. Gentleman said.
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the provisions of clause 6 will commence in England and Wales, but not in Scotland until Scottish legislation is in place. As I said, subsection (7) is simply a standard power in social security legislation to allow that type of flexibility.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to indicate a concern that the Government envisage that different groups of young people will be exempted from the Bill's benefits provisions in the different countries of Great Britain. I assure him that that is not the case. We intend to re-harmonise benefit provision across Great Britain as soon as it is feasible to do so. I also assure him, in answer to his question, that, on 5 July, Scottish Ministers gave a very firm commitment to introducing legislation providing for support for care leavers as soon as possible—in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament,


I believe. Once that has been done, we shall be able to commence the use of the terms of clause 6 of the Bill in Scotland, as it will be commenced in England and Wales.

Mr. Hammond: Surely the Minister does not purport to be able to assure the House that the Scottish Parliament will pass such legislation.

Mr. Hutton: Of course not; that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me when I thought that legislation would be presented to the Scottish Parliament. My information is that it will be introduced in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made very clear his feelings about devolution. I think that Labour Members and some Opposition Members have detected where he and other Conservative Members stand on devolution. Although that is not a matter for this debate, I suspect that we shall return to it in the next few months.
The hon. Gentleman believes that some matters were reserved to Westminster to ensure that there could be no possibility of any variation in them across Great Britain. The Bill deals not only with devolved matters—support for children who are being looked after—but with reserved matters—welfare benefits. We have been very careful to keep in close touch with the Scottish and the Welsh devolved Administrations to be quite certain that they are content with the way in which to handle that new complexity. They are so content. We have also been at pains to ensure that no child is accidentally disadvantaged because of the Bill. We are confident that the Bill will achieve that aim.
The Government have made it clear that it is right in principle that social security benefits should be available on a common basis across the country. However, we recognise that there may be occasions when Edinburgh cannot legislate for the same provisions to our own timetable. We need, therefore, to consider the circumstances on a case-by-case basis to decide whether it is essential that the provisions are implemented countrywide. In this case, it is not essential. Rather, we prefer to proceed with implementation of legislation in England and Wales that will benefit very many children for whom the state is responsible and who have to date not always received the best care and support.
Consequently, as is obvious to everyone, there will be a transitional period in which benefit entitlement for 16 and 17-year-olds who have been looked after will be different on either side of the Scottish border. The Government agree that the sooner entitlement can be harmonised, the better. However, we do not believe that it would be right to deprive English and Welsh looked-after children of all the benefits of the Bill's provisions, which have received widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and more widely during the Bill's passage. The Government have also been at pains to ensure that, during the transitional period, no child will find himself disqualified for support when he moves across the Scottish border in either direction.
The principle is clear: we do not propose to hold up implementation in England and Wales. The practicality will be that the traditional period will be short. As I said, we have assurances from Scottish Ministers that they will legislate for Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity.
We had a long and extensive debate on this issue in Committee. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to proceed with

implementation in England as soon as we can, from next April, because the benefits for English and Welsh children are very substantial. We hope to re-harmonise the situation in Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister talked about needing flexibility in the Bill to deal with future developments. However, it has been made very clear—I do not think that the Minister would deny it—that subsection (7) will be used to deal with the transitional phase.
It is simply not good enough for Ministers to wheel out the devolution slur every time we raise issues that are bound to arise as we all get used to dealing with the situation that has been created by the Scotland Act 1998. We are exploring what happens when the House is asked to consider legislation in which—this Bill may be the first such example—most of the provisions deal with devolved matters, for which the Scottish Parliament has full authority and jurisdiction, but one provision deals with a reserved matter.
We have to address the issues of timing and of United Kingdom Ministers' inability to give assurances on the passage of appropriate legislation in the other Parliament. I think that it was right to raise the issue. I also do not think that the Minister's comments on devolution and on my comments in Committee will bear scrutiny. By highlighting the issue, we are pointing up—and will continue to point up, whenever the need arises—the inherent instability of the devolution settlement and the need continuously to address such issues.
I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that he does not want to deprive Welsh and English children of the legislation's benefits simply because of any tardiness in the Scottish Parliament. I entirely understand his motivation in saying that.
In requesting to withdraw my amendment—although I am far from satisfied—I simply say that the Minister has today demonstrated the confusion in the Government's legislative programme. He told us that, when this Bill was being drafted, it was intended that it should receive Royal Assent and be implemented before the Care Standards Act 2000. Events, however, have been the other way around. One might think that the Government should be in sufficient control of their legislative programme to be able at least to determine which of their measures is implemented first. The Minister is now asking us to believe that he can give effective assurances—a nod and a wink—on what will happen in the Scottish Parliament.
The Minister may have different information from mine, but my understanding is that—although Scottish Ministers have been given orders by No. 10 Downing street that they have to have legislation mirroring this Bill as soon as possible—the arithmetic in Scotland and the views held there on the withdrawal of cash entitlement benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds are such that the Minister cannot predict with confidence that that legislation will be passed.

Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there might be a Machiavellian plot to phase the transfer? If it


results in a flood of care leavers moving to Scotland to go onto benefits, would that not be a powerful incentive for the Scottish Parliament to pass the same legislation?

Mr. Hammond: No, I think not. Having made the point—it has been made before, as the Minister rightly said—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 10, line 27, at end insert—
'(5) In the Care Standards Act 2000, in Schedule 4 (minor and consequential amendments)—

(a) in paragraph 14(4), the words ", as it has effect before the commencement of section 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000"; and
(b) paragraph 14(5) and (6),

are repealed.'. —[Mr. Hutton.]

Clause 8

INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT, WALES AND SHORT TITLE

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 10, line 29, after "from" insert "section 7(5) and".—[Mr. Hutton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hutton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At the heart of the Bill lies one simple but powerful idea—that children in care deserve the same chance to get on in life as any other child; but that has never been the reality. Very few young people in care have ever enjoyed the opportunity to thrive and develop. The facts speak for themselves.
Children in care make up 25 per cent. of those sleeping rough on the streets of London. Young men previously in care make up 22 per cent. of the prison population and that figure rises to 39 per cent. of those under 21. Fewer than one in three leaves care with a single GCSE pass, compared with 95 per cent. of children overall. That is not the failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care. At long last, we are now beginning to address that.
The Bill, together with the other measures we have taken to strengthen and improve children's social services, will lay the foundations for new opportunities for young people in care to get a good education and a good job, to have a stake in and some hope for the future, and to enjoy the same on-going support and help that other children receive as they become adults and move towards independence. It has been in those areas that the care system has let down children in care, often with terrible consequences.
By passing the Bill tonight, we have the opportunity to say that we will no longer tolerate those failures in the care system, that we have acknowledged our responsibility to see to it that young people in care get a

decent chance in life, and that what is good enough for our own children must, in future, become good enough for every child in care.
Children get only one chance in life to grow up—and for them to grow up safely and realise their full potential, they need the active care, help and support of their parents. The new duties and responsibilities placed on local authorities under the Bill will, I believe, help to ensure that looked-after children receive this from their corporate parents.
We all recognise that achieving those objectives will take more than a change in the law. Neither can we afford to be complacent about the scale of the challenge, which is real and significant, but the changes made by the Bill will provide a strong impetus to the new approach and culture that we want to see spread across children's social services, where we have higher ambitions for looked-after children so that social services provide young people not just with care, but with a real chance and opportunity in life, equipping them with the skills and knowledge that they need for their future success.
The Bill will allow local authorities to do all that for the children in their care and, backed by the new resources for children's social services in the spending review, we are now taking the necessary and essential steps towards meeting the collective responsibility that we owe as a society to looked-after children.
Many people have helped ensure that we have taken those steps forward—not only with the Bill tonight, but with the Government's other measures in this area. I should like to thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for both his leadership and his commitment to children in care throughout his time as Secretary of State for Health. He, more than any other person tonight, is entitled to take credit for the Bill.
I should also like to thank young care leavers such as Marie Piper and Tommy Turner, who helped us to prepare the Bill and make sure that it addresses the concerns of children in care. Finally, I should like to thank members of the Standing Committee for their positive and helpful scrutiny of the Bill.
The Bill marks the beginning of a new deal for young people in care. It signals our determination not only to end the all-too-obvious failures of the past, but to build a new and brighter future for some of the most vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people in our country. It is a good and decent Bill and I ask the House to support it tonight.

Mr. Hammond: I welcome the Minister's remarks. All Opposition Members support the idea of a level playing field and seek to redress some of the disadvantages that children leaving care clearly face compared with those who have been more fortunate and perhaps have had more opportunity to enjoy their childhood and prepare for adult life.
We welcomed the Bill when it was introduced. We have consistently welcomed measures that improve the protection of vulnerable children in our society, but that does not mean that we have no significant issues to raise. Some of those issues involve important points of principle, but there has never been any doubt that we support the underlying purpose of the Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that on many occasions.
My noble Friends in another place played an important part in mapping out the final shape of the Bill. It builds on the Children Act 1989, which remains the basis of our system of child protection and child support. I am glad to say that there has been a large degree of consensus even when we have needed to debate the details. We have identified weaknesses and failures in a system that is supposed to protect vulnerable children, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that it is time to correct those weaknesses and failures or collectively share the responsibility for allowing them to continue.
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to consult Opposition parties on the regulations. As so often happens, an unnecessary level of tension is created during the passage of the primary legislation because we do not have sight of the regulatory structure that will inform its operation. We have to assume the worst, but I hope that we will be satisfied and reassured by the regulations in respect of many issues on which we have expressed grave concern. In general, if it were possible for Departments to produce draft regulations for hon. Members to consider alongside the primary legislation, we might find that we needed to spend rather fewer hours arguing about things that might never happen, but which we cannot be sure will never happen until we see the precise form of the regulations.
I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising his desire for consensus throughout the proceedings on the Bill. As I have said before, I believe that on a matter such as child protection we can only proceed by consensus. The Opposition certainly hope that we will proceed in that way in future, to continue to strengthen and reinforce the body of child support and child protection legislation.

Mr. Dawson: It is useful to spend a little time reflecting on the importance and qualities of what everyone should regard as a fine piece of legislation. It is a particularly fine measure not only because the Government have drafted it well, prepared it well and consulted on it well in the first place, but because they have altered it and improved it in response to well-informed opinion. Frankly, the best-informed opinion and the highest quality of advice that the Government have received have come from young people with experience of the care system.
I dismiss entirely the view that the Government are arrogant or do not listen, and I can cite examples of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society who have been welcomed by Ministers and civil servants and have been fully involved in the crucial work of the Department of Health on areas of concern about which they know so much. That is tremendously to the credit of the Government and those officials.
This is very fine and much-needed legislation. I first had formal responsibility for young people in care in 1987. We had in-care meetings and conferences, and young people's concerns about leaving care were always the same. They were left bereft and felt that they were pushed out into the world without support, training or induction or any on-going involvement from local authorities. They were expected to cope independently at an age at which none of us in the Chamber would have been able to cope.
It is a testimony to their bravery and resilience that a proportion of those young people came through that experience successfully. Some of the finest people I know

have been through the care system and coped with experiences that would daunt anyone, in care and after leaving.
There are some individuals who make great efforts. A woman in my constituency runs a children's home, and every Sunday young people and adults as old as their late 30s go back to the home to visit. That is a matter of working way beyond the call of career and duty, through professional and caring values. Of course, we also try to find solutions and put measures in place with housing authorities.
I started working with young people in care before the Children Act 1989. There have been many references to that Act tonight. It is a great piece of legislation, embodying the finest principles and making children the focus of concern, with their needs made paramount, but it was left full of holes. Section 24, in particular, which gave powers to local authorities, did not change the situation for children leaving care.
There are good and decent people of all parties in the House, but the care system in which I worked up to 4 April 1997 was a disgrace. It was completely inadequate. There may be consensus now on the broad basis of the way forward, but the Labour Government inherited a care system that had palpably failed. When I was working in the system, it did not seem that the Government were listening to our concerns. They seemed not to care about the vulnerable people in the system. They had other values, expressed in statements about there being no such thing as community or society. Their priorities did not include young people in care.
When I came to the House, I saw it as a fantastic opportunity to try to change the care system. At a conference three years ago, I outlined what changes I wanted in the care system. I wanted investment, and we are getting an extra £290 million in a five-year programme through quality protects. I wanted attention to standards, and we are getting that through the Care Standards Act 2000. I wanted more money for training, and we are getting that. I wanted attention to be paid to children's rights, and the Government, to their enormous credit, are funding a children's rights director and a new national organisation for children and young people in care. I wanted attention to be focused on the issue of leaving care. If there is one outstandingly excellent thing about the Bill, it is the extension of statutory duties to local authorities for young people up to the age of 21. That is profoundly important and good, and the Government should receive the great credit that they deserve for this excellent measure.

Dr. Brand: I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in rejoicing in the Bill. We have gone a long way since the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave evidence to the Health Committee and made a commitment to extend local authorities' duties of care to people up to the age of 21. We have had a hiccup or two, but I am glad that we have arrived where we have.
There are one or two disappointments. It is sad that the collective brilliance of parliamentary draftsmen could not come up with some way of describing this group of people as young people, rather than children. Nowadays, when people reach 16 they no longer see themselves as children,


although technically they might still be so. It is a pity that we have to stick to old-fashioned definitions even when we are discussing what is undoubtedly progressive legislation.
Our debates here and in Committee have been very interesting. The concept of a local authority as a corporate parent interests me greatly. One could interpret that in more than one way. One could be corporate in the sense of being a corporation. Sometimes, one got the impression that we were discussing not care plans but business plans, that something had to be delivered against a target, and that there would be no reward unless the target was met.
I hope that the framework is firm enough where it has to be, but flexible enough in other areas, so that the corporate parent can act as a tolerant parent. My experience of young people in care is that they are there because their parents were either totally intolerant of them or ignored them, neither of which is very acceptable. The worst situation would be to have a rigid framework in the care planning that disaffected the young people even further.
That raises my main concern about the implementation of this excellent Bill. How will it cope with the care leaver who is not motivated to be the good son or daughter of an excellent corporate parent? Most of us have the privilege of 16 years' experience before we start looking after a 16-year-old. It will be a very hard learning curve for local authorities to be able to meet this very important responsibility, which goes far beyond handing out resources and telling people what they can or cannot do. Careers advisers or representatives of the Benefits Agency can do that, but more is involved in the task facing local authorities.
Resources are important, and there will never be enough cash resources, but I am more worried about having enough human resources. The Minister has been most helpful in that he has not been too specific about what type of human resources are required. However, the human resources involved should be of high quality, and they should be supported. Our deliberations have not touched on the need to support the advisers and social workers who will have to implement the Bill and work with the children involved.
The House has done its best with the Bill, which will pose major headaches and responsibilities for local authorities. We must be tolerant of those authorities and support them as their new role evolves. It is easy to pass legislation that tells people what to do—but much good legislation has failed because the difficulties of implementation have not been resolved. Many hon. Members have experience of the real world. However, I hope that Ministers, who have been so flexible in the guidance that they have created, also understand the need to support the people charged with the vital task of helping children leaving care.
Finally, I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House, and all the members of the Standing Committee. The Minister will not wind up the debate. I am used to ending my contributions by saying that I look forward to what he has to say, but I have heard it all now—often more than once, but then the question has often been asked more than once too.

Mr. Brian White: Yours have.

Dr. Brand: I am usually pretty selective in my questions. However, I and my party support the Bill entirely. I hope that its implementation will be a great success.

Ms Julie Morgan: I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill very much. Like other hon. Members, I was a social worker for many years, in both the statutory and voluntary sectors. In that work, I saw how much we failed the young people in our care. I can think of young people who were cast adrift on society and who ended up in prison or on the street. The Bill is a tremendous tribute to the Government, and I rejoice in its passage through the House today.
I am especially keen to pay tribute to the young people who came up from Wales to the House. They put their views forcibly to hon. Members, from Wales and elsewhere, and were instrumental in some of the amendments that have been made to the Bill in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament.
The consultation on the proposals for regulations is taking place in Wales, and issues remain to be worked out. For example, three local authorities have suggested that professional advisers should be volunteers, while others have suggested that they should be paid. Such matters need to be sorted out, in consultation with the young people.
I hope that children will never again be cast out into society in the way common when I was a social worker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and everyone involved in the Bill—and especially the young people whom I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, welcome this Bill. I am pleased that it has gained so much consensus in the House, and I look forward to its early implementation.
Some of the worst care scandals happened in Wales, but it has since been revealed that similar problems have happened in England as well. One of the Government's primary tasks was to restore the confidence and trust of the public—especially of young people—in the care system. That had been lost over the years, for reasons that hon. Members set out in the debate tonight.
This Bill and the Care Standards Act 2000 mean that that trust is being restored. The Government are paying attention to what young people and hon. Members have said, and the Bill is part of a package of measures that will improve the lot of young people in care, and of those leaving care.
The Bill is slightly better now than when we first considered it three months ago. I welcome the amendments that the Government have made, especially the one that takes account of the need for further education to be considered alongside higher education. That was an important issue, especially for young people leaving care in rural areas.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, much of the Bill's implementation depends on the guidelines that the Government will set out. The situation


in Wales is slightly different from that in the rest of the country, as devolution means that the National Assembly for Wales will decide what those guidelines should be. The hon. Lady mentioned advisers, but the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) also made an important point about advocacy. I hope that the guidelines in Wales, at least, will seek that independent voice in the advocacy services. The right organisations exist in Wales to provide that service, if they are given the right responsibility under the Bill.
I am pleased that the Government have resisted the more sanctions-based approach advocated by some hon. Members, and that they have rejected an approach that is based more on the stick than the carrot. Although some young people may not be able to cope with the pathway plan and will not therefore emerge from the system with the proper support, the Bill means that every effort will be made to encourage those young people to work in co-operation with the people charged with looking after them.
That is a much better approach. We have to accept that there will be some failures in the care system, but we must ensure that the legislation that we pass is as permissive, enabling and empowering as it can possibly be. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
My one concern is that the Bill misses an opportunity to assist former relevant children—young people leaving care—by helping them with training and education up to the age of 24. The Bill is permissive on that account, but I should have liked it to place a duty on local authorities to offer that support.
We have some experience of the permissive and discretionary role that local authorities have, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) mentioned the opportunities in the Children Act 1989 that have been missed. That small chink in the Bill was explored in Committee. I know that the Government are keen to ensure that it does not become a gaping hole, but the Bill could have placed a duty on local authorities to support former relevant children up to the age of 24. We know that 75 per cent. of care leavers have no qualifications, and one of the Bill's primary tasks is to provide a framework to improve their lot.
However, that is the only weakness that I can detect in the Bill. That is a wonderful thing to be able to say. The Standing Committee discussing the Bill was my first experience of such work, and I was very pleased to serve on a Committee considering such a progressive and empowering piece of legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — West Coast Main Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Ms Claire Ward: I was beginning to think that the uncertainty about what time this debate would start was part of a conspiracy to ensure that I was away from my other constituents this evening, who are following the fortunes of Watford football team, which is playing Manchester United at home. However, I shall not detain the House for long, certainly not until 10 o'clock, as I am sure that other hon. Members are keen to know the results.
Many of those who have seen the title of the Adjournment debate will believe that it refers to the chaos and disruption seen on the west coast over the past few days. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will be pleased and relieved to know that it does not. This debate is about the chaos and disruption that will be caused to the people in my community by the works required to achieve the upgrading of the west coast main line.
First, may I say that I fully support the project to upgrade the west coast main line? The opportunity to improve services along the line must be welcomed, and in Watford we expect to see a substantial extension to services as a result of the upgrade. Although I have some concerns about the capacity available to local services, that is not an issue for tonight. I recognise, too, that sometimes there must be disruption in order to gain those benefits. However, we expect our public utilities, notably Railtrack and the National Grid Company, to do all within their power to minimise disruption and seek the most suitable means of carrying out works so that, wherever possible. communities are protected from the upheaval of the track improvements. However, there are two areas along the line in my constituency where proposals from Railtrack are causing great upset and concern to residents.
The first is an issue on which I have already made representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As part of improving the power source for the railway, a series of electrical transformers is being sited along the line. Railtrack has applied to the Secretary of State for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise a package of projects for improving the power supply to the line. One such project includes the siting of an electrical transformer in Gypsy lane in the north of my constituency. Gypsy lane, for those who do not have the advantage of knowing Watford, is a beautiful country cul-de-sac that leads out to greenbelt land, and people regularly walk and cycle there. It is a single-lane road, with no footpaths and no turning spaces, other than those of the residents' own driveways.
Railtrack originally planned to site the transformer on the east side of the track and took some soundings from a few residents. They expressed concern, not so much about the position of the transformer as the access to it. Residents have never opposed the fact that a transformer needs to be sited in the area, but have always opposed the plan that access to it should be via Gypsy lane, which is inappropriate for use by huge vehicles. Railtrack considered that and moved it to the west side. Residents have never supported that site and access to it would still be required via Gypsy lane.
Railtrack has estimated that the work will take about six months. Once built, the transformer will require regular maintenance. That would all need access along this narrow lane. It is no wonder that the residents have opposed Railtrack's proposals.
The site favoured by residents—the original site identified by Railtrack—could be accessed from private land and would be more suitable for construction and maintenance vehicles to use. The land is part of Leavesden aerodrome, now used by Leavesden film studios, and using it would cause less disruption. Equally, using that site would minimise the visual obstruction in this attractive area.
I have supported residents in their discussions with Railtrack. The Transport and Works Act 1992 will now be considered by a public inquiry. However, we continue to urge Railtrack to reconsider the alternative position now, rather than wait until the inquiry, which will not be considering the issue until August next year.
The second issue relates to the south of my constituency, in Oxhey village—another quaint and attractive part of the constituency which is being threatened by Railtrack's proposals. There are two areas of concern. First, a further transformer is required near Bushey station. Although residents had been led to believe that it would be sited near the end of the platform, more recent proposals—without consultation—indicate that it is due to be built further away from the station but nearer to homes. Residents are understandably concerned about the loss of their visual outlook by the erection of such a large building. Some have also expressed concern about the health implications of being so close to a fairly high electromagnetic field.
Secondly, Railtrack has asked the National Grid Company to provide a high-voltage electricity supply to the line. The cables will be run from Elstree sub-station to Bushey railway station. Unfortunately for my constituents, it is proposed that trenches be dug to put the cables along the middle of those narrow Victorian streets. Not only will that cause disruption, increased noise and dirt to residents, but the parking problems in the area will be magnified by the displacement of cars due to the works. Although the majority of the area is residential, a number of businesses such as newsagents, specialist shops and takeaways rely on passing trade and the ability of customers to stop close by. The cabling works would not only make the road almost unusable but would prevent cars from parking in any relatively close proximity. Those businesses will be severely affected and, as yet, they have not been advised of what assistance, if any, Railtrack or the National Grid Company will provide.
Watford borough council has also expressed its opposition to the proposals, and is considering whether to grant the necessary planning permission for the National Grid Company to cross the recreational ground, owned by the council.
Although the National Grid Company claims to have sought to keep the community fully informed of the proposals, it has not been much of a consultation. Residents have stressed the disruption and chaos that will result from the works and have suggested alternatives that have been refused by the National Grid Company and Railtrack.
The first option that we asked them to consider was the use of tunnelling equipment. We are aware that, on other stretches of roads in St. John's wood, the National Grid Company is using the technology available to it by rotary drilling and steel casing a borehole through which the cables are threaded. Equally, when the cables cross the major A41 road under the proposed route, the National Grid Company will tunnel underneath. Residents rightly want the National Grid Company to minimise disruption by using the best technology available to it in undertaking this work. Yet the National Grid Company and its customers, Railtrack, refuse to do so.
Residents and the council have also requested consideration of alternative routes where fewer residential areas would be affected by the cabling. To date, there appears to have been some reluctance to provide exact costings and details of the alternatives and the technical reasons why they are not practical. Neither Railtrack nor the National Grid Company appears interested in those alternatives.

Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that similar problems are occurring in many communities up and down the west coast main line upgrade route? Does she agree that, if Railtrack were to treat those alternative suggestions seriously, it would have far better support in those communities? Instead, people suspect that Railtrack is not up to the west coast main line upgrade.

Ms Ward: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although there are not as many Members in the Chamber as one would wish to be present for an Adjournment debate, I am confident that there are many other constituencies, up and down the west coast main line and elsewhere, where Railtrack and the National Grid Company have not taken due consideration of the concerns raised by residents about the disruption in their area. Indeed, people would be more willing to engage in discussions with Railtrack if they felt that they would be listened to. Negotiations will continue over several months, and I hope that Railtrack and National Grid will be interested in talking to residents and the council.
People in Watford have been told that the proposals are the most cost effective. It seems that Railtrack is not prepared to spend extra money to reduce disruption and protect the environment. The companies are making millions of pounds in profits for shareholders each year, and they have statutory powers allowing them to gain access to private land and highways to carry out their work. On refusal, they can apply to the Secretary of State. That gives the companies immense power over communities that are expected simply to accept proposals and be grateful that they have been informed of the plans.
As a result of my securing the debate tonight and delays by the council in deciding its course of action, Railtrack has written to me to advise that, if we do not accept its plans, it will seek permission to use an alternative and even more disruptive route. Bullying by such companies is quite appalling, and is not conducive to achieving a solution. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will recognise that when she replies to the debate. It is the unfortunate result of their serving the interests of their shareholders rather than those of the communities in which they work. It does not seem appropriate that companies in private hands,


acting in the interests of their shareholders, should have statutory powers far in excess of any held by other companies or industries.
In preparing for this debate, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were unsure about which of them could most appropriately respond to the issues that I intended to raise. I understand the confusion, and it seems that my right hon. Friend has drawn the short straw. I realise that she cannot easily answer some of the points that I have made, particularly on planning, and I should appreciate it if she would pass on those concerns to the DETR.
The local community, councillors and I oppose the proposals. Yet the power of the council to refuse planning permission to National Grid, should it decide to do so, can be easily thwarted by the company's ability to turn to the Secretary of State, who would be placed in a difficult position. It cannot be right that a private company, supposedly acting in the public interest, can use the Secretary of State to justify its desire to keep costs low and profits high while being unable to explain to the local community why alternative proposals are not suitable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will stress that point to her colleagues in other Departments.
I should be interested to hear what standards of consultation and action my right hon. Friend expects from public utilities that are now in the private sector. Does she agree that such companies, with the benefits of wealth, power and lack of competition, have a duty to consider the effects of their actions on the environment and local communities? Does she agree that, when companies make large profits, it is not unreasonable of my constituents to expect the best service rather than simply the cheapest?
In the words of National Grid, the present route was chosen because most of it—approximately 90 per cent.—fell within sparsely populated roads or rural land, with the aim of minimising disruption to the community as a whole. The remaining 10 per cent. of the route passes along residential streets in the immediate vicinity of Bushey station. I believe that it is possible for National Grid to make the extra effort to reroute the cables away from residential areas, so that the route from Elstree sub-station to Bushey railway station causes minimum disruption. That is the view of my constituents, and we hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage National Grid and Railtrack to reconsider the proposals with local residents, me and Watford borough council.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on obtaining the debate. She is known across Government for the vigour with which she has pursued these matters, which may be why a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is answering the debate. I well understand the strength of her feeling about how her constituents have been dealt a hand that they regard as unfortunate.
As my hon. Friend generously pointed out, her concerns cover two distinct but interrelated issues. She is concerned about the Railtrack plans for modernisation of the west coast main line—in particular, how they will

affect her constituents. As she rightly points out, that is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I undertake to my hon. Friend and to her colleagues who are supporting her in this debate to ensure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport is made well aware of the matters that she raised. They are important and, were I in a similar situation, as a constituency Member I would pursue a similar course of action to that of my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is also concerned about the disruption that would be caused by the National Grid Company's proposals for the laying of underground power cables in Oxhey as part of a power upgrade for the west coast main line. That is a matter that falls directly to me as the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. I am replying for the Government, but, by my so doing and by my concentrating on the Department of Trade and Industry aspects, she must be assured that, across Government, we share many of her anxieties and we will try to consider her arguments as fully as possible, especially the points of substantive policy for the future.
As my hon. Friend knows, Railtrack has applied to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise that range of works to upgrade and modernise the west coast main line. Indeed, although Railtrack is a private company, it is regulated by the rail regulator under the Railways Act 1993. Although the Government recognise that the promotion of schemes such as the west coast main line upgrade are matters for the company, where they affect third parties Parliament has provided a procedure under the Transport and Works Act to permit individuals affected by the planned works to make representations.
A public inquiry into the application is to be held next year, starting in January. I understand that the inquiry is scheduled to take place at 10 different venues along the route, to ensure that the proceedings are accessible to all those who wish to take part. Once the different venues and dates have been settled, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will write to all the interested parties to inform them of the arrangements.
I understand that, arising from that application, a number of my hon. Friends's constituents have registered objections to the proposed siting of an electrical transformer at Hunton Bridge, Kings Langley. That is one of the works included in the application for a Transport and Works Act order. All interested persons will have an opportunity to make their views known on that and any other proposals in the application at the public inquiry. My hon. Friend will be pursuing that matter with her characteristic vigour.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that it would not be right for me to comment in advance of the inquiry on any proposals included in the Transport and Works Act application. To do so could prejudice the proper consideration of the application in light of all the evidence that has to be presented to the inquiry or made in writing. In the usual way, the inspector who is making the inquiry will provide a full report on the proceedings.
I am sympathetic to the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents about the disruption that is likely to be caused by the works. We all know the great upheaval


that can be caused to local communities because of such works. However, checks and balances exist in legislation to ensure that the rights of landowners and occupiers are not ignored.
Under existing legislation, electricity companies must first seek to make contractual arrangements with landowners or occupiers for rights to install electric lines. Such arrangements are called wayleaves, which also confer access rights for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, repairs and anything else that may be required.
I understand that the National Grid Company has obtained all the wayleaves that it requires voluntarily, except for one, covering the section of the route from Attenborough fields to Oxhey. That land is owned by Watford borough council, and its policy and procedures committee met yesterday to decide whether to agree to grant the wayleave on a voluntary basis. I understand that the committee referred the matter back to the full council, which will meet on 13 December.
Should Watford borough council decide not to grant the NGC a wayleave, the company can then apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the grant of a compulsory wayleave. I cannot discuss the merits of that case, as, if an application for a compulsory wayleave is made in due course, it may come before the Secretary of State for decision.
It might, however, be helpful to my hon. Friend and her constituents if I outline generally the procedures followed if an application for a compulsory wayleave is made, to illustrate that the current provisions encourage negotiation—as my hon. Friend wants—rather than compulsion and to ensure that such procedures are conducted fairly and independently.
Applicants for compulsory wayleaves for new lines must first give a period of notice to landowners of at least 21 days. If voluntary wayleaves have not been agreed at the end of the notice period, application can then be made to the Secretary of State. Should the—usually—on-going negotiations between the parties be unsuccessful, my Department will, if requested, arrange a hearing at which the parties can make their cases. That hearing would normally be conducted by an inspector from the DTI's engineering inspectorate, who acts independently in such matters, and who, after hearing the evidence, submits a written report to the Secretary of State with his or her

recommendations. The Secretary of State's decision is then conveyed to the parties. We do not yet know whether that procedure is likely to be required.
In summary, I cannot comment on the merits of the decisions that have to be made, because of the Government's quasi-judicial position in the matter. I have listened carefully to the debate and will ensure that my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are informed as to the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of her constituents—especially in relation to the rather cavalier way in which my hon. Friend believes that her constituents have been treated by Railtrack.
If a wayleave is received by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the normal procedures will be followed. I understand that the NGC has already discussed the route options publicly and has consulted organisations such as the traffic police.
The substantive point of my hon. Friend's criticisms relates to the performance of companies such as Railtrack and the NGC. Regardless of whether utilities are in the public or the private sector, companies have certain responsibilities that flow from the performance of their public service obligations. We expect them to supply on demand; to provide a high level of service and, in doing so, to take the needs of individuals into account.
We are all grown-up people who realise that, in the real world, there will be a need for development work, and that such work causes disruption. Such matters can be dealt with under various statutes, such as the Electricity Act 1989, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Those measures can all be used, but they do not diminish the criticism correctly made by my hon. Friend: when any company undertakes works that will cause not only economic but social disruption, it has an obligation to take that disruption into account. Companies must behave considerately and sensibly towards people such as my hon. Friend's constituents.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the debate. I have listened to it carefully. The Official Report will be made available to my colleagues in other Departments.
In conclusion, as Airdrieonians football club is not playing tonight, I can, without hesitation, wish my hon. Friend's team every success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Nine o'clock.